Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 15 Oct 2011 20:10:38 GMT, Han wrote:



IRS says he
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179091,00.html

The Social Security benefits you received in 2010 may be taxable. You
should receive a Form SSA-1099 which will show the total amount of
your benefits. The information provided on this statement along with
the following seven facts from the IRS will help you determine whether
or not your benefits are taxable.

How much – if any – of your Social Security benefits are taxable
depends on your total income and marital status.

Generally, if Social Security benefits were your only income for 2010,
your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a
federal income tax return.

Don't forget to check your state laws too. In CT, SS income is
taxable, assuming you are in the taxable brackets.

Indeed, but we were dealing with federal income taxes, I thought.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

m II wrote:
But he said he would stop responding to his posts!!! This definitely
adds a lot of weight to the seriousness of this argument!

We need to take these emphasized statements seriously. If somebody
states something incorrectly, here, woodworkers need to unite and don
their white capes with face hoods for fear of just being viewed as a
bunch of whittling hacks with no real life skills! These lifestyle
threatening off-the-cuff comments cannot be tolerated and shouldn't be
taken lightly.

Anybody have plans for a wooden cross?

You sure spend a lot of time and effort at trying to be a
"trouble-maker". Either that or I don't have as good of a sense of
humor (which is plausable).


-----------------
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"If" is the mother of all dissembling qualifiers.

IOW, "SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable".

-------------------
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ...
I'm going to quit responding to your posts. Time and time again I and
others have corrected your errors of fact and you never change. I have
to assume that you deliberately ignore the facts to generate controversy.

Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 3:09 PM, Larry W wrote:
In article7eWdndUUUsQguwXTnZ2dnUVZ5qednZ2d@giganews. com,
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/14/2011 6:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!


Uh yes they do unless I guess you are talking about one of those 4
brakes for just $99 kind of deals. A typical normally priced 4
wheel job at a dealer is$400, and they do turn the rotors.

Most manufacturers within the last decade or so have started
recommending that rotors NOT be turned.

Not if they need to be turned. If there is even wear there is no need
to do so.

Run that past again Leon - I am not getting what you are trying to say.

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:


That is not right either. The dealer makes more money if he turns the
rotors than he does if he sells new ones. Labor and parts sale price
would be about the same however the parts cost to the dealer is much
higher than the labor cost. AND in most GM dealerships the service
departments pays a mark up price to the parts department thus lowering
the service department GP even more on parts. Basically the rotor
has x amount of GP which the parts department and service department
share. The separate departments in dealerships very much operate like
separate businesses with in the same building.

It does not matter how the money is spilt withing the dealership Leon - the
dealership still realized the same amount of money, regardless of any
internal splits.

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:

Being older and not having problems with paying an extra $200 or so to
keep me off the floor and my hands clean I let the dealership have my
business.

Hey - I'm in that "older" category myself! Not as old as Swingman, but
still in the "older" category. I've taken a different approach to reducing
the amount of time I spend under hoods, and under cars - I buy cars sooner
now than I used to. I used to think it a badge of honor to drive a car to
250,000 miles, and do all of that work to keep it pristine - both in body
and mechanical condition. Now - 120,000 works for me. Get rid of the
sucker before I have to do all that work...

--

-Mike-

The trouble is already projected by many of the participants here. I
just enjoy reflecting the same garbage.

You need a new nickname as that one has a bad reputation, big time, on
Usenet. Your babysitting fits the description of the same kook.

-----------------
"Bill" wrote in message ...

You sure spend a lot of time and effort at trying to be a
"trouble-maker". Either that or I don't have as good of a sense of
humor (which is plausable).

m II wrote:
The trouble is already projected by many of the participants here. I
just enjoy reflecting the same garbage.

You need a new nickname as that one has a bad reputation, big time, on
Usenet. Your babysitting fits the description of the same kook.

But I thought you were past needing a babysitter. Was I mistaken?




-----------------
"Bill" wrote in message ...

You sure spend a lot of time and effort at trying to be a
"trouble-maker". Either that or I don't have as good of a sense of
humor (which is plausable).

Then why are you performing this function?

We got Mikey putting in "Bull****" every post and we got Bill trying to
scold us into good behaviour.

Sounds like both sharing a keyboard with akula.

----------------
"Bill" wrote in message ...

But I thought you were past needing a babysitter. Was I mistaken?




-----------------
"Bill" wrote in message ...

You sure spend a lot of time and effort at trying to be a
"trouble-maker". Either that or I don't have as good of a sense of
humor (which is plausable).

In article ,
says...

On 10/14/2011 10:01 AM, Bill wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less
affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic
there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less
affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd
love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me?
Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the
hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax
anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the
consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing
else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or
personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a
flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the
ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much
(only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the
poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good
enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?
Don't get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

They are? Care to tell us under what article this is covered?

In article ,
says...

On 10/15/2011 11:30 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:58:05 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids? Don't
get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

Oh? Where in the constitution?

P.S. I wish you and others would learn to snip.

The Constitution enumerates and limits government power, not individual
rights. That's what the Bill of Rights says, specifically the 9th and
10th Amendments. Construing the Bill of Rights, the Supremes have
repeatedly held that procreation is a fundamental right.

You have some cases to cite?

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 10/13/2011 4:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount
of taxes. THIS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL YEARS TO IMPLEMENT AND THERE COULD
BE SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT DAMN FEW. Every one means a family of 5 pays 5
times what a single person pays. You might be surprised to learn that
it is doable with the understanding that it would take several years
to fully implement.

Would that be fair? Absolutely. Why should you pay more taxes than
your neighbor when he gets the same benefits as you. Why shouldn't he
pays as much in taxes since he gets the same benefits as you?


Sounds like you're an advocate for my "Fair-Fair Tax" plan. I sent the
outlines to Senator McGovern back when he, as a presidental candidate,
advocated sending everybody $1000. At that time, our population was about
250 million and our national budget was about $250 billion.

That works out to a tax of $1000/per person. Send it in.

Ah, but what about the person who doesn't HAVE $1000?

They could contribute unit of blood platelets (at $100) each month for ten
months and have their taxes for the year paid (I call this my Tax Withdrawal
Plan).

Sure, you might say, but what about the teen-age mother with four children?
She can't contribute five units of blood platelets and we're certainly not
going to drain toddlers! (that would be cruel). She can contribute a kidney
and get a $25,000 credit, enough for her and her brood for five years
(longer if she contributes blood platelets too). At the end of five years,
perhaps a cornea or half a liver. By the time ten years have passed, her
offspring would be on their own and having their own tax issues.


Add the possibility of donating community service for those that cannot
afford to pay their taxes.

Oh, now you want slave labor.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 10/14/2011 3:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:

IMHO the tax solution is for "everyone" to pay the exact same amount of
taxes.
Every one means a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays.

You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a
single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women
with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars.
That's three people, each paying three very different amounts.
For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2
million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay
the same amount in taxes.

No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a
single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?


To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.

A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.

You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a
"reasonable" person would think.


You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.

And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies
and pays the same amount as the orphan. Fair is fair. Right?

Except that there are not men with guns dragging either the CEO or the
orphan to the movies. Movies are elective, taxes are not.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 23:54:09 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 10/14/2011 10:01 AM, Bill wrote:
On 10/14/2011 11:55 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 8:11 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:49:17 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 10/13/2011 2:33 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:06:42 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/13/2011 10:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:51:46 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 2:14 PM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
news Snip



IMNSHO, we will grow the economy more if we let the less
affluent
buy more ...

GOOD punchline.g
(On the off chance that you're serious, what's your logic
there?
How do the poor buy more?)

Getting more spending power into the hands of the less
affluent will
lead to more purchasing of manufactured goods (my opinion).

Do you have any good ideas as to how to accomplish that? I'd
love it!

Good! Same as above: We would be even richer as a nation if the
resulting wealth was spread out more evenly, not going to
corporations
and really rich people who can afford to stash it abroad.


Sets see here Han do you want to share your wealth with me?
Probably
not. Corporations which are made up of people and create jobs for
people should not be taxed at all. We don't want to bite the
hand that
feeds us.

Right, but also note that those corporations don't pay tax
anyway. It's a
cost of doing business and necessarily gets passed onto the
consumer. Might
just as well put the tax there. It's more efficient, if nothing
else.


Right! Corporations don't pay taxes its customers do.

So do I mark you down in the "Supports Fair Tax" column? ;-)

How wold you like me to answer that? ;~)

Well,...

Ultimately I think every one should pay equally for services that they
are getting. Like going to the store and buying a new TV or going to a
base ball game, no discounts or price hikes for income level or
personal
wealth.

"Equality" means different things to different people. I'd prefer a
flat
(rate) income tax, likely because it's easier to understand (the
ramifications
of) than "The Fair Tax".

I am talking about equal, not a formula for equal. I pay a dollar you
pay a dollar. As you mentioned Equality can include a formula to make
your amount more or less than my amount. Government taxes should the
same and affordable by every one. I think this would eventually be
obtainable if every one had equal interest in how the government spends
our money.

Let's see, $3.5B/312M is only $11,000 per person. We pay that much
(only two
of us), and perhaps you do, but I don't see it happening for "the
poor". Even
I wouldn't much like it with a family of six. No, flat *rate* is good
enough,
even with *a* standard deduction.

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?
Don't get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

They are? Care to tell us under what article this is covered?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."

On 10/15/2011 7:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


That is not right either. The dealer makes more money if he turns the
rotors than he does if he sells new ones. Labor and parts sale price
would be about the same however the parts cost to the dealer is much
higher than the labor cost. AND in most GM dealerships the service
departments pays a mark up price to the parts department thus lowering
the service department GP even more on parts. Basically the rotor
has x amount of GP which the parts department and service department
share. The separate departments in dealerships very much operate like
separate businesses with in the same building.

It does not matter how the money is spilt withing the dealership Leon - the
dealership still realized the same amount of money, regardless of any
internal splits.


Actually it does matter how the money is split. Department managers are
most often paid on GP for that department. For example if the parts
department passes the cost of the part along to the service with no mark
up the counter guys would make less commission and the manager would
make less commission. The service department manager gets a commission
on the parts that his department sold but not on the total GP that the
dealership made. Same goes for the parts department as their GP is made
on the internal sale to the service department. Counter sales GP to
businesses and walk in customers completely belongs to the parts
department. Service labor sales goes completely to the service
department. The parts department can have many different internal sales
to any and all departments including wholesale and retain walk in business.

So, to more easily keep up with what department gets credit for how much
GP the departments operate as separate businesses with in a business.

Now while the total GP made on a part sale might seem to be a logical
fixed amount, that is not art all true. A part sold over the counter to
a walk in customer will generally have the same GP in the end when it is
sold to the service department. That is generally not so when the parts
department sells a part to the new or used car department. Often
flashy add ons to close the car sale are absorbed by the new or used car
department.

So where am I going with this? ;~) The dealer will net more or less
depending on which department the part is sold internally too. And keep
in mind that department managers and employees typically have very
different pay plans. So in many cases the dealer will net more from
selling labor than he will from selling a part and labor to accomplish
the same thing because of different commissions paid to department
employees. The more hands the parts travel through the less the "net"
profit for the dealership.

The only profit that the dealer is really interested in is the net
profit but he has to keep his department managers happy and they have to
keep their department employees happy. So a part sold in a dealership
to a customer for "x" amount of dollars will net the dealer more or less
depending on who all is involved with the transaction.

Automobile dealerships cash flow operate very differently than most
other businesses.

On 10/15/2011 7:47 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2011 3:09 PM, Larry W wrote:
In article7eWdndUUUsQguwXTnZ2dnUVZ5qednZ2d@giganews. com,
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 10/14/2011 6:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:



05 Cavalier, turn the rotors and drums and new pads and shoes.

Turn the rotors???? Leon - nobody turns rotors anymore!


Uh yes they do unless I guess you are talking about one of those 4
brakes for just $99 kind of deals. A typical normally priced 4
wheel job at a dealer is$400, and they do turn the rotors.

Most manufacturers within the last decade or so have started
recommending that rotors NOT be turned.

Not if they need to be turned. If there is even wear there is no need
to do so.

Run that past again Leon - I am not getting what you are trying to say.


If there is a problem with a rotor that can be turned, the service
department will turn the rotor vs, sell a new one. If the rotor does
not need to be turned it probably will not be turned or replaced.

On 10/15/2011 7:57 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:

Being older and not having problems with paying an extra $200 or so to
keep me off the floor and my hands clean I let the dealership have my
business.

Hey - I'm in that "older" category myself! Not as old as Swingman, but
still in the "older" category. I've taken a different approach to reducing
the amount of time I spend under hoods, and under cars - I buy cars sooner
now than I used to. I used to think it a badge of honor to drive a car to
250,000 miles, and do all of that work to keep it pristine - both in body
and mechanical condition. Now - 120,000 works for me. Get rid of the
sucker before I have to do all that work...


LOL, how old do you think Swingman is????

Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I tend
to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak and
he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold sot
to speak.

120,000 miles huh? I used to turn them in at 6,000. ;~) And the
dealer paid for the gas. But seriously I want the new features long
before I get 250k miles. I have had a few vehicles that I have run past
100k but they were Japanese.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I tend
to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak and
he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold sot
to speak.


You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.

Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are just
as bad.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I tend
to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak and
he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold sot
to speak.


You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.

Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are just
as bad.

That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
centers doing it. It was company-wide.

Yet another reason to never darken the doors of Searz Roebucks.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On 10/16/2011 10:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, Ed wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I tend
to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak and
he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold sot
to speak.


You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.

Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are just
as bad.

That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
centers doing it. It was company-wide.

Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and shop.
They repaired a flat for me recently.

Leon wrote:
On 10/16/2011 10:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, Ed wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I tend
to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak and
he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold sot
to speak.


You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.

Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are just
as bad.

That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
centers doing it. It was company-wide.

Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and shop.
They repaired a flat for me recently.

Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in the
21st century for you! sacrasm intended

On 10/16/2011 3:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/16/2011 10:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, Ed wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I
tend
to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak
and
he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold sot
to speak.


You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.

Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are just
as bad.

That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
centers doing it. It was company-wide.

Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and shop.
They repaired a flat for me recently.

Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in the
21st century for you! sacrasm intended

I am aware of that but the sign still says Sears and the shop never closed.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:45:10 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/16/2011 10:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, Ed wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I tend
to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak and
he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold sot
to speak.


You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.

Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are just
as bad.

That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
centers doing it. It was company-wide.

Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and shop.
They repaired a flat for me recently.

Huh! I thought they had dropped all of them back in the '90s, but
maybe it was only in California. They closed the one I always saw
when returning broken Crapsman hand tools for exchange.
http://goo.gl/2Gjue

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Leon wrote:
On 10/16/2011 3:34 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/16/2011 10:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 11:24:29 -0400, Ed wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:58:02 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



Having many years experience working in an automotive dealership I
tend
to support the guys there. I typically go to the guy that has
experience and has been there a while. We talk the talk so to speak
and
he knows that I know what needs to be done. I don't get over sold sot
to speak.


You are fortunate. Many people get sold a lot of unnecessary work
than is mainly needed to enhance the dealer's profits.

Not to bash dealerships, the big chains and some independents are just
as bad.

That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
centers doing it. It was company-wide.

Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and shop.
They repaired a flat for me recently.

Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in the
21st century for you! sacrasm intended

I am aware of that but the sign still says Sears and the shop never closed.

Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )

Leon wrote:


Actually it does matter how the money is split. Department managers
are most often paid on GP for that department. For example if the
parts department passes the cost of the part along to the service
with no mark up the counter guys would make less commission and the
manager would make less commission. The service department manager gets a
commission on the parts that his department sold but not on the total GP
that the
dealership made. Same goes for the parts department as their GP is
made on the internal sale to the service department. Counter sales
GP to businesses and walk in customers completely belongs to the parts
department. Service labor sales goes completely to the service
department. The parts department can have many different internal
sales to any and all departments including wholesale and retain walk
in business.

And all of that make no difference - it's all paper transfer within the
dealership. The net to the dealership is still the same, regardess of how
they spit it.

So, to more easily keep up with what department gets credit for how
much GP the departments operate as separate businesses with in a
business.

All of that is an internal issue.

Now while the total GP made on a part sale might seem to be a logical
fixed amount, that is not art all true. A part sold over the counter
to a walk in customer will generally have the same GP in the end when it
is sold to the service department. That is generally not so when the
parts department sells a part to the new or used car department. Often
flashy add ons to close the car sale are absorbed by the new or used
car department.

Your're mixing too many factors Leon. Cost vs revenue - that's all it comes
down to in the end, and all of the internally shinanagins don't change that
one bit.


So where am I going with this? ;~) The dealer will net more or less
depending on which department the part is sold internally too.

Only within their own internal bookeeping - not in real terms.

And
keep in mind that department managers and employees typically have very
different pay plans. So in many cases the dealer will net more from
selling labor than he will from selling a part and labor to accomplish
the same thing because of different commissions paid to department
employees. The more hands the parts travel through the less the "net"
profit for the dealership.

Introducing labor on top of parts is a totally different matter.


The only profit that the dealer is really interested in is the net
profit but he has to keep his department managers happy and they have
to keep their department employees happy.

That's an internal dealership accounting matter Leon. It has nothing to do
with the gross net.


So a part sold in a
dealership to a customer for "x" amount of dollars will net the dealer
more or
less depending on who all is involved with the transaction.

No it will not - with the exception of added labor. The rest is internal
crap.


Automobile dealerships cash flow operate very differently than most
other businesses.

No they don't - they just convolute it more.

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:


LOL, how old do you think Swingman is????

VERY freakin' old! He was in SEA before I was...


120,000 miles huh? I used to turn them in at 6,000. ;~)

Geezus - I can't afford to do that...

And the
dealer paid for the gas. But seriously I want the new features long
before I get 250k miles. I have had a few vehicles that I have run
past 100k but they were Japanese.

Mine are Korean.

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote:


That's exactly why Searz lost their automotive department. They got
caught in an extremely large sting and found that it wasn't just a few
centers doing it. It was company-wide.

Yet another reason to never darken the doors of Searz Roebucks.

I'm no Sears fan, but they are very much alive with their automotive service
centers in the Northease.

--

-Mike-

Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:


Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and
shop. They repaired a flat for me recently.

Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in
the 21st century for you! sacrasm intended

Huh? Yes - everybody knows that, but what in the hell does that have to do
with the above quotes that you replied to?

--

-Mike-

Bill wrote:


Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )

I'm guessing you never pursued your MBA...

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )

I'm guessing you never pursued your MBA...


True, but I have a BS in BA, why?

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:


Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and
shop. They repaired a flat for me recently.

Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in
the 21st century for you!sacrasm intended

Huh? Yes - everybody knows that, but what in the hell does that have to do
with the above quotes that you replied to?


Simply that Sears isn't Sears!!!

I think when people reflect about Sears, it's the old one they mean--not
the one that's K-mart! Geeze! %) lol!

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:


Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and
shop. They repaired a flat for me recently.

Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in
the 21st century for you!sacrasm intended

Huh? Yes - everybody knows that, but what in the hell does that
have to do with the above quotes that you replied to?


Simply that Sears isn't Sears!!!

I think when people reflect about Sears, it's the old one they
mean--not the one that's K-mart! Geeze! %) lol!

Most of us have the ability to read and understand current events.

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:30:55 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )

I'm guessing you never pursued your MBA...


True, but I have a BS in BA, why?

I believe you to have dyslexia, too, sir.
Isn't "a BA in BS" closer to the truth?

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:


Sears in Houston still has an operating automotive department and
shop. They repaired a flat for me recently.

Yes, but you do realize that Sears (S) went bankrupt, and after (the
lawyers) divested their common shareholders of anything of value
re-emerged and merged with the Kmart Holding Company in 2005 as the
Sears Holding Company. There's a shining example of "capitalism" in
the 21st century for you!sacrasm intended

Huh? Yes - everybody knows that, but what in the hell does that
have to do with the above quotes that you replied to?


Simply that Sears isn't Sears!!!

I think when people reflect about Sears, it's the old one they
mean--not the one that's K-mart! Geeze! %) lol!

Most of us have the ability to read and understand current events.


Yeah, but do they think about them? What is your take on what happened?

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:30:55 -0400,
wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )

I'm guessing you never pursued your MBA...


True, but I have a BS in BA, why?

I believe you to have dyslexia, too, sir.
Isn't "a BA in BS" closer to the truth?

Someone drop a fly in your soup???

--
...in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Bill wrote:

Yeah, but do they think about them? What is your take on what
happened?
---------------------------------------
The guy who first acquired control of K-Mart is a liquidation artist.

When Sears got in trouble, he acquired them with the sole purpose of
liquidating the major property holdings they have.

At one time Sears owned the majority of their retail stores.

Whether Sears survived as a retail business was moot to the process.

Where things stand today, I'm clueless.

Lew

I was thinking it too, Bill. It was too hard to resist but he beat me
too it!

-----------------
"Bill" wrote in message ...
True, but I have a BS in BA, why?

-------------
GD bottom posting ****ed it up
I believe you to have dyslexia, too, sir.
Isn't "a BA in BS" closer to the truth?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:21:20 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:30:55 -0400,
wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )

I'm guessing you never pursued your MBA...


True, but I have a BS in BA, why?

I believe you to have dyslexia, too, sir.
Isn't "a BA in BS" closer to the truth?

Someone drop a fly in your soup???

No, that's the usual quip. If not Bachelor of Arts degree, what does
your BA stand for?

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:21:20 -0400,
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:30:55 -0400,
wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


Yes, I was still thinking about efficiency and "unbridled capitalism".
They didn't remove the Sears sign because it still had value. Whether
the shop actually closed or not probably depends on who you ask...lol.
I happen to notice that the name Borders Bookstore was still used by a
different company that liquidated their assets even after Borders was
defunct. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker, honest! : )

I'm guessing you never pursued your MBA...


True, but I have a BS in BA, why?

I believe you to have dyslexia, too, sir.
Isn't "a BA in BS" closer to the truth?

Someone drop a fly in your soup???

No, that's the usual quip. If not Bachelor of Arts degree, what does
your BA stand for?

Bus. Admin.


--
...in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Bill wrote:

Yeah, but do they think about them? What is your take on what
happened?
---------------------------------------
The guy who first acquired control of K-Mart is a liquidation artist.

When Sears got in trouble, he acquired them with the sole purpose of
liquidating the major property holdings they have.

At one time Sears owned the majority of their retail stores.

Whether Sears survived as a retail business was moot to the process.

Where things stand today, I'm clueless.

Lew

It's sort of interesting to remember that Sears Roebuck and Co. was a
giant before they had any retail stores; the Walmart or Amazon.com of
its day. Before paved highways, there was the Sears Roebuck catalog.
And that's today's bicentennial minute.

On 10/15/2011 9:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/15/2011 11:30 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:58:05 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids? Don't
get me started...lol.

At least in the USA, you are entitled to exercise your constitutional
rights. Decisions about procreation are a fundamental constitutional
right.

Oh? Where in the constitution?

P.S. I wish you and others would learn to snip.

The Constitution enumerates and limits government power, not individual
rights. That's what the Bill of Rights says, specifically the 9th and
10th Amendments. Construing the Bill of Rights, the Supremes have
repeatedly held that procreation is a fundamental right.

You have some cases to cite?

Here's a very few, just to get you started.
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977)