[downinflames68]

BREAKING: Swedish Patient Succumbs - Deal for Saab is dead on the table, GM to wind down brand — Autoblog


Konisiggiigigigigiigig almost bought them, then some russian guy... and now... nobody. Pretty sad.

[olePigeon]

Why the hell did Chrysler get bailed out, but not Saab.

[downinflames68]

Saab isn't an American company. It also hasn't been profitable in eons.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Saab isn't an American company. It also hasn't been profitable in eons.

Kinda like Chrysler.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Why the hell did Chrysler get bailed out, but not Saab.

They did. Then the bailed-out entity that owns Saab decided to shut it down.

[residentEvil]

but thankfully, Hummers will still role on (bottom of the SAAB article)!

GM will shutter Saab after talks collapse | detnews.com | The Detroit News

just for you Rob; had too! i like poking the bear...and you are a fun bear to poke (i know others on here don't agree with that, but f'em).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Why the hell did Chrysler get bailed out, but not Saab.

Because the Swedish Government doesn't employ retarded policies like that.

Saab failed and goes bankrupt. That's how things need to be.
In the US, we will be stuck with crap forever, held alive by the Fed and Treasury.

-t

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Because the Swedish Government doesn't employ retarded policies like that.

It would be especially retarded if the Swedish Government bailed out an American-owned company.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

It would be especially retarded if the Swedish Government bailed out an American-owned company.

Not more than "buying" Saab from GM and keeping it artificially alive.

-t

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Not more than "buying" Saab from GM and keeping it artificially alive.

-t

True. I guess that's why the deals fell through. The buyers must have thought they were getting something that GM actually isn't giving up.

[imitchellg5]

Not surprising that they're gone, with such low sales. But it's a shame, I'm betting they could have got back on track with the next 9-5.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Because the Swedish Government doesn't employ retarded policies like that.

Saab failed and goes bankrupt. That's how things need to be.
In the US, we will be stuck with crap forever, held alive by the Fed and Treasury.

-t

Sorry, is this the same Sweden that has universal health care?

[scottiB]

I had an 83 900 Turbo sedan in college that I beat and loved to death.

Saad day.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Sorry, is this the same Sweden that has universal health care?

It's probably easier to afford universal health care when you're not bailing out failed corporations.

[hayesk]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Sorry, is this the same Sweden that has universal health care?

Uhm... a right to affordable health care is a bit more important than a brand of car.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Uhm... a right to affordable health care is a bit more important than a brand of car.

I agree, I'm just having a bit of fun at turtle's expense.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I agree, I'm just having a bit of fun at turtle's expense.

Oh you did ?

Well, carry on

-t

[Phileas]

A real shame. I drove an old Saab for a while. Great car for Canada, really capable in winter.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Uhm... a right to affordable health care is a bit more important than a brand of car.

Not in the US. The trick here is to strap yourself down in huge monthly car payments, spend more on eating out and entertainment, then complain about how expensive healthcare is while lobbying for a government-run healthcare scheme. Sorry, I didn't bring it up.

ahem... now about SAAB going under; shame really.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not in the US. The trick here is to strap yourself down in huge monthly car payments, spend more on eating out and entertainment, then complain about how expensive healthcare is while lobbying for a government-run healthcare scheme. Sorry, I didn't bring it up.

Exactly right. That's what people don't understand. People in those countries have tax rates of about 50%, and that's for the middle class, not the peak earners.

What this also mean sis that other things are far less affordable.

Of course, the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it, too.

-t

[Phileas]

^ Tax rates in the US and Europe are pretty much comparable, once you do the math.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

^ Tax rates in the US and Europe are pretty much comparable, once you do the math.

I know the taxes in the US and Germany. Not comparable at all, at least once you factor in all the social security and health related cost.

-t

[Phileas]

I can't find the article right now, but I read a research paper recently, examining tax disparity, and perceived tax disparity, between countries in the EU and the US. The conclusion was that once you've factored in health insurance - i.e. you're a US resident who is insured - the amount of money leaving your pockets for comparable services was pretty much the same.

I was surprised too.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

I can't find the article right now, but I read a research paper recently, examining tax disparity, and perceived tax disparity, between countries in the EU and the US. The conclusion was that once you've factored in health insurance - i.e. you're a US resident who is insured - the amount of money leaving your pockets for comparable services was pretty much the same.

That sounds like a different matter. If they factor in after-tax payments for health (co-pays, treatments), then yes, the disparity might disappear. I was strictly talking about the deductions from your gross pay check. Those are NOT comparable.

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

I can't find the article right now, but I read a research paper recently, examining tax disparity, and perceived tax disparity, between countries in the EU and the US. The conclusion was that once you've factored in health insurance - i.e. you're a US resident who is insured - the amount of money leaving your pockets for comparable services was pretty much the same.

I was surprised too.

I've heard Doofy say similar things as well I believe?

greg

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That sounds like a different matter. If they factor in after-tax payments for health (co-pays, treatments), then yes, the disparity might disappear. I was strictly talking about the deductions from your gross pay check. Those are NOT comparable.

-t

I realize that we're entering hair-splitting county here, but neither are the services that your tax dollar buys you. In Europe, these include perceived basics like health care, in the US they don't. So while you might be paying less tax, you also receive less in return.

As soon as you equalize services, outgoings do appear to be comparable. Which, at the end of the day, is really all that counts.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

As soon as you equalize services, outgoings do appear to be comparable. Which, at the end of the day, is really all that counts.

I don't disagree, but my statement is still correct: Europeans pay higher taxes. That doesn't change even if if Americans then spend their own money to get things that Europeans get from their government.

I prefer the latter, because people are much more frugal and conscientious when they spend their *own* money.
As soon as people start spending money that's levied by the government in forms of taxes, they try to maximize their return, and the cost of the system balloon.

-t

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't disagree, but my statement is still correct: Europeans pay higher taxes. That doesn't change even if if Americans then spend their own money to get things that Europeans get from their government.

I prefer the latter, because people are much more frugal and conscientious when they spend their *own* money.
As soon as people start spending money that's levied by the government in forms of taxes, they try to maximize their return, and the cost of the system balloon.

-t

I thought that after moving to France, that I would pay more taxes than in the UK. In fact I pay less, but then I have 2 kids and my wife has only just re-started work. For what our family earns, we pay in taxes about 30% of our income. But France is one of those countries that actually earns more from sales tax (aka VAT) than from income taxes. In the UK (IIRC) income tax earns the most for the Gov.

After having lived in the UK, the US and now France, and having paid tax in all of them. I prefer the European model with health care being basically provided by the state. However, health care for 10 million Swedes or 60 million Frogs, isn't the same as health care for 300 million Americans.

Just an example table from France :

Tranches de revenus et taux applicables aux revenus 2008 (impôt 2009)
Jusqu’à 5 852 € 0 %
de 5 853 € à 11 673 € 5,5 %
de 11 674 € à 25 926 € 14 %
de 25 927 € à 69 505 € 30 %
Plus de 69 505 € 40 %

[Spheric Harlot]

There's a list of gobbledigook and numbers at the end of your post.

What's it supposed to illustrate?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I prefer the latter, because people are much more frugal and conscientious when they spend their *own* money.
As soon as people start spending money that's levied by the government in forms of taxes, they try to maximize their return, and the cost of the system balloon.

-t

Looking at what is happening in the US, that statement is beginning to look like wishful thinking - which is strange, because on the surface it seems to make perfect sense.

Where it falls down is that a: a private model needs to deliver shareholder value in addition to patient value and b: patients have a tendency to max out private insurance just as much as they have a tendency to max out public insurance.

Both models have unquestionable drawbacks, but personally I prefer to live with universal healthcare, here in Canada supplied by the provinces and paid for by taxes, than with the US model of selective health care.

One of the main problems we're experiencing with the public model here in Canada at the moment is not so much patient abuse, it's good old fashioned corruption, with government officials giving multi-million dollar contracts to their buddies.

Thankfully, a whole bunch of these people had their hands slapped recently in a most satisfying manner.

[imitchellg5]

Saab must be REALLY dead if this is digressing to talking about taxes

Oh, and it's not quite dead. Seems the Dutch supercar maker that have been successful at nothing (including buying Saab earlier) wants another go.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't disagree, but my statement is still correct: Europeans pay higher taxes.

Sorry Turty but I can't agree. Once you've figured in state and local taxation, and FICA (especially if you're self employed), and all the offshore legislation... ...the US is pretty much a very high tax country. Easily on a par with, if not exceeding, the highest taxed Euro countries.

But hey, everyone gets to sing "land of the free and home of the brave" every five minutes, so it's worth it.

[Doofy]

On topic: I thought SAAB made jets for their government? Surely they'll get a bail out if they're a military equipment supplier too?

[angelmb]

One name, two companies.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

On topic: I thought SAAB made jets for their government? Surely they'll get a bail out if they're a military equipment supplier too?

Different company... it's like Rolls-Royce that builds cars and Rolls-Royce that builds (the best) aerospace engines.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

One name, two companies.

Ahhh. Enlightening. Thanks.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't disagree, but my statement is still correct: Europeans pay higher taxes. That doesn't change even if if Americans then spend their own money to get things that Europeans get from their government.

I prefer the latter, because people are much more frugal and conscientious when they spend their *own* money.
As soon as people start spending money that's levied by the government in forms of taxes, they try to maximize their return, and the cost of the system balloon.

-t

Well, if you accept the assertion that it's essentially equal outgo for comparable services, then actual experience doesn't really bear this out.

[CreepDogg]

Apparently the iron lung is still plugged in...

Spyker renews offer for GM's Saab - Dec. 20, 2009

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ahhh. Enlightening. Thanks.

You welcome. Albeit Leica can easily beat that.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

One name, two companies.

Like when VW "bought" Rolls Royce, only to discover that the company only leased the actual name from Rolls Royce Aero engines, only to have BMW buy the actual name! Greatest automotive sale cock up evar.

[imitchellg5]

I think I just bought Saab...

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There's a list of gobbledigook and numbers at the end of your post.

What's it supposed to illustrate?

The percentage of income tax paid at different revenue levels.