Americans Got Screwed: After Trump's Tax Cuts, Companies Eliminated More Jobs Than They Created

[metis]

And yet the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since 1969.

But if you look at this being charted out, it's an extension of the Obama recovery. Matter of fact, two of the quarters under Obama had more economic growth than any quarter under Trump.

 

[metis]

Had nothing to do with the tax cuts, nothing to do with corporations. Corporations never had to pay taxes in the first place.
The consumer does.

So, they don't have to pay any taxes but all the rest of us do, right? They get the mine while we get the shaft, right?

Actually, I'm in favor of using the VAT more, so I'm partially on board with ya.

 

[Koldo]

[Source]

You can find the original story here (but it might be behind a paywall for some people):

Trump’s Tax Cut Was Supposed to Change Corporate Behavior. Here’s What Happened.


Basically, Trump and Republicans promised you more jobs and pay raises if you supported Trump's tax cut. Even several large corporations got into the act and said they'd use the money to hire more people and give raises to their employees.

But what really happened?

Corporations have laid off more people than they've hired, and -- on average -- given at best only tiny raises to their employees.

Instead of doing what they promised to do, the corporations have used the tax cuts mainly to make their senior executives and shareholders richer.

Moreover, the tax cuts for the middle class were made to expire in a few years while the tax cuts for the corporations and uber-rich were made permanent.

And now, Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders are saying they must make cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps to pay for Trump's tax cut. Those are services the rich don't need --- so why not cut them rather than cut multi-billion dollar subsidies to corporations? That's how the Republicans are reasoning.

Questions? Comments?

For some reason this seems to remind me of a song:

More like: Oops!...I screwed you again.

 

[Revoltingest]

Corporations never had to pay taxes in the first place.

That's only true for professional corporations.
But even those pay taxes, but the liability is passed thru to the owners.
(This is the same as a limited liability company, ie, LLC.)
This should help clarify that other corporations do pay taxes.
How Corporations are Taxed
So the questions should be....
How much?
With what tax policy incentives?

 

[stvdv]

Trump’s Tax Cut Was Supposed to Change Corporate Behavior. Here’s What Happened.
Basically, Trump and Republicans promised you more jobs and pay raises if you supported Trump's tax cut. Even several large corporations got into the act and said they'd use the money to hire more people and give raises to their employees.
But what really happened?
Corporations have laid off more people than they've hired, and -- on average -- given at best only tiny raises to their employees.
ives and shareholders richer.
Moreover, the tax cuts for the middle class were made to expire in a few years while the tax cuts for the corporations and uber-rich were made permanent.
And now, Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders are saying they must make cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid, and food stamps to pay for Trump's tax cut. Those are services the rich don't need --- so why not cut them rather than cut multi-billion dollar subsidies to corporations? That's how the Republicans are reasoning.

That is exactly what I already said 6 month ago. This is why they put Trump as president. To take away the money of the "non rich" and move it into the pockets of the "rich". And just look at Trump his rate firing people that means people losing jobs. He is a lying machine and will totally screw up American economy (of the normal people of course; the rich will get more rich)

I am surprised people still believe anything good can come from Trump. If you study narcissism you know exactly what you will get ... Nada.

 

[Mindmaster]

Basically, Trump and Republicans promised you more jobs and pay raises if you supported Trump's tax cut. Even several large corporations got into the act and said they'd use the money to hire more people and give raises to their employees.

But what really happened?

Several details are omitted, like the bulk of these companies making terrible financial decisions that have forced them to lay people off. Their stocks also have been tanking not because of anything Trump did, but rather what they're doing themselves.

Stock buy backs, btw, are a sure sign that a company is screwing up and trying to keep their value from sliding. Essentially, they're trying to create artificial demand for the the stock to preserve value. Also, they do it to profit -- they buy their stocks back cheap to sell them later. Essentially, this tells you nothing without knowing the prospectus of particular companies and none of those companies are mentioned.

Macro numbers like economic statistics tend to lag significantly as well and that needs to be considered. It's more likely that anecdotal experience is more relevant in the short term. As far as locally, there are lots of jobs being created here where I live and that's what I can go on without media spin. Certainly, the bulk of these jobs are what most would say were menial but hell I'll take it over the zero jobs that were here with hundreds of people fighting for a single position. Local wages have gone up as a result because employers have to actually fight to get positions filled. That's really what is driving the wage increases here, not tax breaks.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, they don't have to pay any taxes but all the rest of us do, right? They get the mine while we get the shaft, right?

That's the reality of it. All costs are always deferred to the product or service the corporation provides along with the adjusted price tag. We the common man or woman pays for everything. Whether it be government or private.

Several details are omitted, like the bulk of these companies making terrible financial decisions that have forced them to lay people off. Their stocks also have been tanking not because of anything Trump did, but rather what they're doing themselves.

Stock buy backs, btw, are a sure sign that a company is screwing up and trying to keep their value from sliding. Essentially, they're trying to create artificial demand for the the stock to preserve value. Also, they do it to profit -- they buy their stocks back cheap to sell them later. Essentially, this tells you nothing without knowing the prospectus of particular companies and none of those companies are mentioned.

Macro numbers like economic statistics tend to lag significantly as well and that needs to be considered. It's more likely that anecdotal experience is more relevant in the short term. As far as locally, there are lots of jobs being created here where I live and that's what I can go on without media spin. Certainly, the bulk of these jobs are what most would say were menial but hell I'll take it over the zero jobs that were here with hundreds of people fighting for a single position. Local wages have gone up as a result because employers have to actually fight to get positions filled. That's really what is driving the wage increases here, not tax breaks.

Democrats don't like acknowledging that.

It's Wall Street and the stock market that's been responsible for layoffs and loss of jobs more than anything else. Not taxes.

I bet the layoffs primarily are from Fortune 500 companies.

It's really hypocritical to think that Democrats who say they support the middle class , would ever vilify Trump's decision to put more money into middle-class pockets by making a tax cut. Democrats answer is bigger government, repressive taxes, and creating social dependency. Not my cup of tea.

All I know is the bottom line to which I have more money in my pocket now than I did previously since the tax cuts went into effect.

 

[Valjean]

Not really. Just that none of the facts will really be known until 2019. It's just fun watching a lot of you ramble on....and on...and on.....

The "horse and sparrow" theory didn't work in the 1890s, and it didn't work as "supply side," "trickle down" or "Reaganomics" from the 1980s to present. You can't borrow your way to prosperity. Prosperity never trickles down.

Had nothing to do with the tax cuts, nothing to do with corporations. Corporations never had to pay taxes in the first place.

But they did. During the period of greatest economic and corporate growth, top corporate tax rates were as much as 91%. Both corporations and the workers prospered. Corporate CEOs didn't pocket their profits, but reinvested them into their companies and workers to lower their tax brackets.
If you want corporations to share their profits with workers, and grow their companies, tax them.

And yet the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since 1969.

High employment doesn't equate with prosperity. We had even lower unemployment during slavery.

 

[Mindmaster]

All I know is the bottom line to which I have more money in my pocket now than I did previously since the tax cuts went into effect.

It's really funny to me how partisan the "news" is, and that is what you have to keep in perspective. It's really come to the point where if something isn't in your direct awareness you can't trust it. And, I am in the same boat and many of my direct associates are "only improving", however, they were in much more financial trouble than I've ever been in.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But they did. During the period of greatest economic and corporate growth, top corporate tax rates were as much as 91%. Both corporations and the workers prospered. Corporate CEOs didn't pocket their profits, but reinvested them into their companies and workers to lower their tax brackets.

I can only assume that was prior to the removal of the gold standard and NAFTA.

 

[Valjean]

I can only assume that was prior to the removal of the gold standard and NAFTA.

This was from the '50s through the '70s.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's Wall Street and the stock market that's been responsible for layoffs and loss of jobs more than anything else.

It's awkward to claim that the stock market causes job loss.
Fundamentally, this market enables raising capital for companies,
which leads to employment. Price fluctuations can adversely
affect jobs, but those jobs would be far fewer without this method
of raising capital.

 

[sun rise]

Btw, I've noted that the deficit has increased under Trump. And I give him responsibility
for this. (Sure, sure, Congress makes the budget, but Trump has influence & veto power.)
I'm surprised the left hasn't criticized this.

Massachusetts Democrats say GOP tax cuts to blame for rising deficit, oppose push for entitlement cuts

If You Want Fiscal Responsibility, Elect Democrats | RealClearPolitics

Democrats Are Attacking The GOP For Its Hypocrisy On Deficits. That Might Be A Mistake. | HuffPost

Democrats need to stop whining about the deficit

 

[Watchmen]

But if you look at this being charted out, it's an extension of the Obama recovery. Matter of fact, two of the quarters under Obama had more economic growth than any quarter under Trump.

Classic fake news.

 

[Nakosis]

[Source]

You can find the original story here (but it might be behind a paywall for some people):

Trump’s Tax Cut Was Supposed to Change Corporate Behavior. Here’s What Happened.
[/QUOTE]

Hard to see how any government could win on this. They can't exactly control the behavior of private companies. Should the government even involve itself in trying to stimulate growth? Seems like a pipe dream.

Maybe the government should see to cleaning up its own house. Its spending/budget. I've kind of lost faith that this will ever happen. People put the Republicans in power, nothing changes. People put Democrats in power, nothing changes. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

 

[Nakosis]

Economics is a complex thing.

Sure, IMO beyond the ability to effect it in any real way except to suppress it more. Sure they try to push and incentivise through taxes, but are limited in how much actual control they have.

We, the people have the actual control. I suppose it is beneficial to have a government to blame especially it happens to be being runned by a party you oppose.

I personally found it more convenient to be less productive. To limit my interaction with the economy. One can never seem to get ahead of the ways the government finds to take their "fair" share of what you earn. So you work less, buy less, life becomes easier.

To find a balance between taking care of the needs of the country and avoiding undue suppression of the economy seems a difficult task for any administration even if that happens to be their intent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Massachusetts Democrats say GOP tax cuts to blame for rising deficit, oppose push for entitlement cuts

If You Want Fiscal Responsibility, Elect Democrats | RealClearPolitics

Democrats Are Attacking The GOP For Its Hypocrisy On Deficits. That Might Be A Mistake. | HuffPost

Democrats need to stop whining about the deficit

Yes, it's in the news (which is how I found out).
But the volume is low, particularly on RF.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, IMO beyond the ability to effect it in any real way except to suppress it more. Sure they try to push and incentivise through taxes, but are limited in how much actual control they have.

We, the people have the actual control. I suppose it is beneficial to have a government to blame especially it happens to be being runned by a party you oppose.

I personally found it more convenient to be less productive. To limit my interaction with the economy. One can never seem to get ahead of the ways the government finds to take their "fair" share of what you earn. So you work less, buy less, life becomes easier.

To find a balance between taking care of the needs of the country and avoiding undue suppression of the economy seems a difficult task for any administration even if that happens to be their intent.

Aye, spending less so there's less need to work is an easy route.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's awkward to claim that the stock market causes job loss.
Fundamentally, this market enables raising capital for companies,
which leads to employment. Price fluctuations can adversely
affect jobs, but those jobs would be far fewer without this method
of raising capital.

The point is, that employment statistics are just not as simple as raising or lowering taxes to sway figures to go this way, or another way.

There are tons of factors that can go into play that can affect jobs, wages and such. It's what I was driving at.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point is, that employment statistics are just not as simple as raising or lowering taxes to sway figures to go this way, or another way.

There are tons of factors that can go into play that can affect jobs, wages and such. It's what I was driving at.

I know it's boring, but I agree.