https://www.atr.org/list

lots of companies announcing bonuses or pay raises afterwards. Maybe one thing Republicans are doing right? I'm not economics savvy at all but trickle down doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. I hate pretty much every other stance that party has and Trump is a racist misogynist asshat but also know a lot of smart people that do agree with their economic approach.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/23/580029629/kimberly-clark-announces-layoffs-along-with-3-3-billion-in-operating-profit

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

http://www.newsweek.com/christmas-att-layoffs-midwest-bonuses-trump-758391?amp=1#click=https://t.co/4CcyWmJufE

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/business/walmart-wages-tax-cuts.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FLayoffs%20and%20Job%20Reductions

There's was a little more than rank because they're allowing people to reapply for lower paying jobs.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/01/12/walmart-is-reportedly-planning-to-cut-over-1000-corporate-jobs.html?__twitter_impression=true

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Supposedly we are getting something in March but at the same time my state taxes will be higher and Georgia said they aren't going to do any tax cuts yet and need to decide on what to do with the incoming surplus.

_______________________
We rationalize dumb shit

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/comcast-fired-500-despite-claiming-tax-cut-would-create-thousands-of-jobs/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Especially since alot of these are one time bonuses, instead of a long term commitment to higher compensation.

The one time $1000 bonus pales in comparison to the tax savings businesses will receive in just ONE year from the tax cuts.

Now getting $1000 is nothing to sneeze at. But if the goal is to put more money in worker's hands (it wasn't), then decreasing individual tax rates more would be the way to go.

That's why "trickle down" is bullshit. Why do the round about way to increase middle class wealth by trying to funnel it through the wealthy and corporations?
It's just a way to camoflauge real intentions

_______________________________________

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/07/news/companies/ge-job-cuts/index.html

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

_______________________________________

"lots of companies announcing bonuses or pay raises afterwards. Maybe one thing Republicans are doing right? I'm not economics savvy at all but trickle down doesn't seem like a bad idea to me."

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Otherwise, I can't see why GE struggling for the past couple of years and laying folks off fits in the post

_______________________________________

1. Some companies are using good press from bonuses to mask layoffs (Walmart / att)
2. Some companies are using the money from the tax plan to pay for layoffs (Kimberly -Clark)
3. Some companies just flat out lied (Comcast)
4. Tens of thousands of jobs being suddenly cut from your economy (Macy's, sears, Walmart, ge, toys r us) will have an overall net negative effect on any gains you may get


Addendum*
My posts directly refute that the tax plan is working out in a positive way for the country.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Actually not at all.
There will always be layoffs and business reorganization no matter what the status of the country or the economy.

To point at a layoff event and try to directly connect it to the tax cuts is very dishonest without evidence showing the relationship.

I mean, what is even the logical connection between tax cuts and increased layoffs?

>
>Addendum*
>My posts directly refute that the tax plan is working out in a
>positive way for the country.

_______________________________________

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

I did.
Now I'm waiting for you to explain why a company getting a tax cut would directly lead to a decision to increase layoffs.

>>
Chairman and CEO Thomas J. Falk cited "a challenging environment" in a company statement about its layoff plans. Kimberly-Clark says it will close or sell about 10 manufacturing facilities and expand production capacity at several other sites.

"The company says the restructuring program could save up to $550 million," NPR's Adelina Lancianese reports for NPR's Newscast unit. "Personal care companies are struggling as stores compete with online retailers by offering discounts or creating their own private label products. Procter & Gamble also announced that its grooming sector has been hit hard by store discounts."
>>

Sounds like a logical, strategic reason for layoffs.


>>
Walmart, like many retailers, is attempting to reorient itself to a new retail landscape in which store footprints are out of sync of shoppers. It is also battling e-commerce giant Amazon, whose advanced investment in technology helps it leapfrog traditional stores' profit margins.

It has sought to make its store more profitable by pouring money into shelf-scanning robots and cashier-replacing capabilities. Walmart expects to roll out its "Scan & Go" technology to 100 more locations.
>>

Sounds like a logical, strategic reason for layoffs.

>>
When Comcast announced the firings internally, the employees were told that a new direct sales system requires fewer humans, the fired employee told the Inquirer.
>>

Sounds like a logical, strategic reason for layoffs

>>
Competition from renewable energy is putting pressure on the traditional power business. GE said disruption in the industry has reduced the need for its products by 40%. Just last month, the German industrial conglomerate Siemens (SIEGY) announced plans to cut 6,900 jobs, mostly in its power division.
>>

Sounds like a logical, strategic reason for layoffs

_______________________________________

https://www.vox.com/explainers/2018/1/25/16904136/corporate-america-tax-cut-celebrations-explained

Did you forget just one month ago.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

that this won't be a positive for the economy? That's a tough standard to meet.
The proper test is whether layoffs will be more or less than what they would have been without the cuts.

Again, I'm still waiting for you to explain how tax cuts are directly related to increased layoffs in your mind.

Stop posting article links and think/speak for yourself.

_______________________________________

Links.

The tax bill was promoted as a job creator
Companies responded by laying people off
The tax windfalls went to shareholder buy backs
None of this has a positive effective on the economy
When layoffs happen money stops circulating
When layoffs are announced people hold money more and even more money stops circulating
None of this has a positive effect on the economy.


Put another way. Which companies have announced hiring relative to what was promised from the tax plan?

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

But dishonesty/bad faith shouldn't be a way to critique something.

Is this a valid rebuttal to your layoff examples?

https://www.axios.com/apple-says-it-will-add-350-billion-to-us-economy-in-next-five-years-1516212860-87a949ce-ac15-4840-98cf-bc4c79d96c74.html

>>
Apple plans to create 20,000 new U.S. jobs on top of its 84,000 existing U.S. workers.
>>

I don't think it is a good rebuttal because picking and choosing individual examples to illustrate general impacts of policies is dishonest. Just like your cherry picking layoff announcements.

I'm not even arguing that tax cuts will necessarily lead to increased employment. We are already nearly at full employment currently, and companies were already sitting on massive amounts of capital without investing.
I don't think increasing their profits is all of a sudden encourage them to do something they already had the ability to do.

But to argue that these layoffs are directly related to the tax cut is ridiculous. Ridiculous enough that you won't even attempt to explain it.

_______________________________________

You fucking idiot

>But to argue that these layoffs are directly related to the tax cut is ridiculous.
>Ridiculous enough that you won't even attempt to explain it.

Here's a response that your idiot ass already responded to keep up
"lots of companies announcing bonuses or pay raises afterwards. Maybe one thing Republicans are doing right? I'm not economics savvy at all but trickle down doesn't seem like a bad idea to me."

1. Some companies are using good press from bonuses to mask layoffs (Walmart / att)
2. Some companies are using the money from the tax plan to pay for layoffs (Kimberly -Clark)
3. Some companies just flat out lied (Comcast)
4. Tens of thousands of jobs being suddenly cut from your economy (Macy's, sears, Walmart, ge, toys r us) will have an overall net negative effect on any gains you may get


Addendum*
My posts directly refute that the tax plan is working out in a positive way for the country.


______

I forgot that you were the dude I said this to I won't forget that again

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13227487&mesg_id=13227487&listing_type=search#13227541

And it's astounding to see someone post something so ill informed with such confidence. I'd be embarrassed to be that ignorant.

I'm good on responding to you.
Have a good one bud

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

As long as it achieves your objectives, it's all good right?

_______________________________________

I guess deception and fake hot takes is your thing

_______________________________________

the companies are just claiming it but its really just a way to make the workers that arent being laid off more okay with their coworkers being laid off and not panic.

the amount of companies announcing bonuses then layoffs is too many for it to make any sense.

i appreciate the posting of each one of them.

I doubt they would make these announcements or give these bonuses without them.

It's a fraction of the money they are going to save with this tax plan so it's a lay up for them

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

It's meaningful to millionaires and billionaires.

Higher income earners will see a short term pop that might fund a vacation or pay off a bill, or buy something big.

But studies show that raises make people marginally happy but not equal to the way loosing money makes people feel bad.

This last election has open my eyes to all politics being tribal for the most part. It takes really big outside events for people to give up that tribalism.

One of the most annoying parts is that we have let the moral right dictate the morals of politicians for 75 years and it's become clear that moralism was just a cover for tribalism. They didn't give a shit that Gary Hart had an affair, they just wanted more Reagan.

And we are still paying their moral game with Al Franken. SMH.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://amp.cnn.com/money/2016/01/06/investing/macys-cuts-3000-jobs-holiday-sales/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Wife is an exec with starbucks and has a hand in how they are spending their saving

they now have sick leave
getting starting pay increases
expanding maternity/paternity leave

I also benefited from getting additional raises...and inventors are companies are more willing to pay to protect their intellectual property because of the savings which has benefited my billable hours

______________________________________

Navem nu, cuando sol
Tutu nu, vondo nos nu
Vita em, no continous non
Nos nu ekta nos sepe ta, amen

When the sun shades the ship
We sweat and life is not safe
To swim or to touch not
When we unite we hedge amen

WAIT, you meant monetarily? I've got a few sch.... err.... business plans in the making to capitalize off this tax plan. Trump has inspired me to find new ways to get to the bag for my benefit at the expense of everyone else.

I looked at the stub and the federal taxes withdrawn this pay period was less that it was on my last pay stub.

I'm also getting a bonus but that's based solely on our company's performance and not his tax cuts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-tax-guidelines-rely-on-workers-to-double-check-their-paychecks/2018/01/11/234088c4-f700-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?utm_term=.36c72839d183


A senior IRS official said Thursday that Americans with simple tax situations are likely to get accurate paychecks next month. But many Americans, including those who tend to itemize their tax returns, will need to use the online tool to ensure they are not dramatically overpaying or underpaying their taxes. The online calculator will not be available until sometime next month.

If they find their paychecks are inaccurate, it will be incumbent on the employees to tell their employers to make corrections.

.
.
.
.
.
.
*Senior Treasury Department officials said they expect employers to update their systems so that the new withholding tables go into effect by Feb. 15.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Man, accountants are about to get paid! Lol!

I wonder what accounts for the difference in my check though. All other withdrawals were the same as the last paycheck. Soc. Security, Medicare, Benefits and 401K deductions didn't change.

The only difference was the reduction in the Fed Tax withdrawal (we don't have state taxes).

They decide how much to take from your check. It's possible they already implemented their estimates of the new tax tables.

_______________________________________

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

_______________________________________

Correct?

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4e8-IvdllMQ/hqdefault.jpg

_______________________________________

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

No one here will have more insight than the person that can directly see and is responsible for cutting your payroll check, so ask them for the correct answer.

In regards to if your fed tax rate is lowered as result of the new tax plan, click on the following link from irs.gov that has information about the new payroll tax tables: https://tinyurl.com/y9zvxbbn

"Sean sparks like John Starks, nah, Sean ball like John Wall" - Rest In Power Forever Sean Price.

It’s shallow as hell.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

If you gave everybody in the system more money, but gave much more money to the wealthy, wouldn't this just create inflation that disproportionately harms the lower- and middle- classes?

I don't see how any stimulative, tax-cutting policy can be seen as beneficial (even if we leave aside the question of whether government might actually need the revenue that we've now cut) unless it promotes greater wealth equality. It needs to be redistributive, so that lower- and middle- class people have not just more dollars, but more actual wealth (meaning a greater % of the wealth in the system).

Anything else is smoke and mirrors.

>https://www.atr.org/list
>
>lots of companies announcing bonuses or pay raises afterwards.
> Maybe one thing Republicans are doing right? I'm not
>economics savvy at all but trickle down doesn't seem like a
>bad idea to me. I hate pretty much every other stance that
>party has and Trump is a racist misogynist asshat but also
>know a lot of smart people that do agree with their economic
>approach.



Trickle down is a terrible idea. This article tells you what's really going on.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/26/did-your-company-pay-you-bonus-tax-savings-check-list/1065291001/


Did your company pay you a bonus with tax savings? Check the list.
Adam Shell, USA TODAY Published 6:00 a.m. ET Jan. 26, 2018

Balancing a retirement and college savings can be overwhelming. Here are 6 tips that will help ease the long-term planning. USA TODAY


More than three dozen of the biggest American companies have shared their tax-cut windfalls with employees, mostly through one-time bonuses but also with hourly wage increases and bigger 401(k) matches following the new tax law passed in December.

Home Depot was the latest big name to say it will share some of the financial benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which slashed the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%. The home improvement chain on Thursday said it will pay a one-time cash bonus up to $1,000 to its U.S. hourly workers. The bonus follows similar moves by employers such as Walmart and Walt Disney. Overall, the tax law is seen boosting the profitability of large U.S. companies by an additional 8% this year, according to Credit Suisse.

As of Thursday, 37 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index — comprising 500 of the nation's largest companies — have said they are providing additional financial rewards to workers, citing benefits from the new tax law, according to a USA TODAY analysis of corporate press releases and company statements, as well as other forms of publicly available communications tracked by multiple sources, including Americans for Tax Reform, FactSet and S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Two dozen of the companies are paying cash bonuses, four are issuing bonuses in company stock, seven are lifting wages and two are boosting the company's 401(k) match. Combined, these companies represent 7.4% of the S&P 500.

USA TODAY's research estimates that more than 1.3 million U.S. workers will receive either cash or stock-based bonuses totaling an estimated $1.7 billion or more. Still, the bonuses announced so far by large S&P 500 companies are quite small compared with the total compensation — wages, salaries and benefits — of $10.3 trillion paid by U.S. companies last year, according to the Department of Commerce.

Overall, S&P 500 companies are expected to pay an estimated $75 billion to $100 billion less in taxes in 2018 compared with last year, according to Credit Suisse.

More: A year into the Trump presidency 401(k) balances are looking good

More: Bitcoin: If currency crashed, plunge would harm its investors but not economy

More: Why January matters to stock investors with 401(k) accounts

While getting an extra $1,000 check is welcome, employees would have been better off had more companies boosted their pay as wage gains are permanent, economists say.

"Obviously a bonus is a one-time event paid without consideration of employee performance, providing only a temporary lift," says Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com.

What's more, a bonus will do little to close the wage gap between workers and CEOs. In 2016, S&P 500 CEO's earned a median $11.5 million in compensation from salary, bonus, stock and other compensation, up 8.5% from the prior year, according to a study by executive data firm Equilar for The Associated Press. CEOs earned 347 times what the average worker did in 2016, according to the AFL-CIO's Executive Paywatch study.

"It's a drop in the bucket," says Nick Sargen, chief economist at Fort Washington Investment Advisors, a money-management firm in Cincinnati. "Companies are doing it mainly as a PR gesture. It looks good that they are sharing a portion, however small, of the corporate tax cuts."

More bonus announcements are likely, but workers shouldn't get too excited over the prospect of coming pay hikes, adds Edward Yardeni, president & chief investment strategist at Yardeni Research.

Companies, he says, are unlikely to boost wages because they remain cost-conscious in a tight labor market, are focused on maintaining profit margins and are still mindful and fearful of the fallout from the Great Recession nearly a decade ago.

"Workers won't see many wage increases," says Yardeni, adding that "if all these corporations were coming back with wage increases (rather than bonuses), it would have more substantial impact on consumers."

Whether the steady stream of news touting bonuses or pay increases will continue will depend on the "performance of the economy" and the businesses themselves, Bankrate.com's Hamrick adds.

Scott Anderson, chief economist at Bank of the West in San Francisco, says most of the announcements about profit-sharing with workers will come in the first three months of 2018. "Then the announcements will die down," he says.

Here's a list of S&P 500 companies, citing the tax-cut as a motivation, that have announced "bonus" payouts to workers. (The list does not include companies that are giving pay raises or 401(k) boosts.

Alaska Airlines

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 19,000

American Airlines

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 130,000

Apple

Bonus: $2,500 in company stock

Employees getting bonus: most of 138,126 employees worldwide

AT&T

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 200,000

Bank of America

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 145,000

BB&T

Bonus: $1,200

Employees getting bonus: 27,000

Citizens Financial

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 12,500

Comcast

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 100,000

Comerica

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 4,500

Discover Financial Services

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 15,000

Fifth Third Bank

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 13,500

Hartford Financial Services

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 9,500

Home Depot

Bonus: $200 to $1,000

Employees getting bonus: Vast majority of 40,000

Kansas City Southern

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 6,485

Navient

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 6,566

PNC Financial Services Group

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 47,500

Royal Caribbean

Bonus: Company stock equivalent to 5% of pay

Employees getting bonus: 66,000

Southwest Airlines

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 55,000

Starbucks

Bonus: $500 to $2,000 in company stock

Employees getting bonus: 150,000

Thermo Fisher Scientific

Bonus: $500

Employees getting bonus: N/A

Travelers Companies

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 14,000

Total System Services

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 11,500

U.S. Bancorp

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 60,000

Verizon

Bonus: 25 shares of company stock for part-time workers

50 shares of company stock for full-time workers

Based on Feb. 1 closing stock price

Employees getting bonus: 153,000

Walmart

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 40,000

Walt Disney

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus:125,000

Waste Management

Bonus: $2,000

Employees getting bonus: 34,000

Zions Bancorp

Bonus: $1,000

Employees getting bonus: 80% of workforce

---------------------------
Signature

For this sh!t

A few folks in here breaking it down, especially MEAT.

Props.

In general terms though, even if some are benefitting
in the short term, it’s scraps compared to the gains at the top.

And not only is that unnecessary, morally wrong,
and will lead to justifying cuts to the social
safety net....

It’s also a terrible/inefficient at best way to grow the
economy.

These companies are putting in PR work


A little bonus here, a mild raise there...and folks
won’t think too much about how bad of if a deal
this really is.

Since when do companies advertise bonuses
and sh!t? Cmon

first, its some insidious shit that corporations have gone on a pr blitz just to sell the 'success' of the repub tax cut to americans. when have you seen large companies basically collude to influence public opinion of a piece of legislation like this?

and the media amplifies it by putting the bonuses in the headlines but footnoting important details like you gotta be with the company 20 years to be eligible. and theyre just backpaging the downsizes and layoffs so they dont get as much rotation in the news cycle.

the walmart bonuses were covered heavily by national media. but you pretty much had to watch local news to get good coverage of sams clubs suddently closing stores without notice THAT SAME DAY.

the way the media is covering the economy now is disingenuous in general...giving the impression there is some 'trump boom' when brick and mortar retail outlets are getting slaughtered, tourism has declined sharply solely due to trump, the us dollar is crashing, last year was the slowest rate of job growth since 2010, and federal contractors are offshoring jobs at a record clip since trump became president.

How every announcement is like, "Thanks to the historic tax cuts we are doing xyz"

Shit is weird. Maybe trying to curry favor with Trump and them?

>first, its some insidious shit that corporations have gone on
>a pr blitz just to sell the 'success' of the repub tax cut to
>americans. when have you seen large companies basically
>collude to influence public opinion of a piece of legislation
>like this?
>

_______________________________________

theyre basically just doing marketing to help keep *their* preferred party in power imo.

maybe my memory is foggy...but obama had a larger tax cut in 2009 aimed directly at the poor and working class and didnt receive half the positive spin from the media. instead people got caught up in whether they received literal stimulus 'checks' or not.

he even pushed a witholding cut so people would receive money quicker. and then added on to that credits for child care, education, home sales, expanded eic, etc. i really wish he would have sung his own praises more.

Reasons from social science, I mean.

The idea was that those cuts were meant to increase consumer spending in the short term.

To make that happen, it's better if people just get slightly higher paychecks without thinking it's some kind of gift, so that they're more likely to just spend that extra money without thinking.

With the Bush stimulus, a lot of people took those checks that they got with so much fanfare and put the money into savings, or paid down credit cards, thinking they were doing the right thing. (And for their own particular purposes, maybe they were in many of these cases.) But the economic stimulus effects are weakened if people don't just go out and mindlessly spend the money.

What's that phrase? "Virtue is folly", or something like that?

in how a party can market tax cuts in a way that maximizes the public good, or in a way that maximizes electoral payoff, and how those two goals don't always align. Kind of a depressing weakness of the democratic process.

>>
The key factor in these kinds of distinctions, Thaler’s work suggests, is whether people think of a windfall as wealth or as income. If they think of it as wealth, they’re more likely to save it, and if they think of it as income they’re more likely to spend it. That’s because many people tend to base their spending not on their long-term earning potential or on their assets but on what they think of as their current income, an amount best defined by what’s in their regular paycheck. When that number goes up, so does people’s spending. In Thaler’s words, “People tend to consume from income and leave perceived ‘wealth’ alone.”

So what does this mean for making a rebate work? If you want people to spend the money, you don’t want to give them one big check, because that makes it more likely that they’ll think of it as an increase in their wealth and save it. Instead, you want to give them small amounts over time. And you want the rebate to show up as an increase in people’s take-home pay, because an increase in steady income is more likely to translate into an increase in spending. What can accomplish both of these goals? Reducing people’s withholding payments.
>>

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/01/26/a-smarter-stimulus

A Smarter Stimulus
January 26, 2009 Issue
A Smarter Stimulus

By James Surowiecki


Cutting taxes is usually a surefire political winner. Yet Barack Obama’s plan to include more than a hundred billion dollars in individual tax rebates in his stimulus package has earned him criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Critics in his own party think the rebate, which Obama wants to distribute by reducing people’s withholding payments, will be too small to make a difference—the equivalent of an extra forty dollars or so a month. Naysayers from the right maintain that, because the tax rebate is a onetime event rather than a permanent reduction in tax rates, it will have only a negligible effect. Skeptics on both sides worry that most people will save the rebate rather than spend it.

The criticism isn’t unwarranted. The record of past tax rebates is checkered, and forty bucks a month doesn’t sound like much. But the very things that seem unusual about Obama’s rebate plan—that it will be handed out by reducing withholding, instead of in one lump sum, and that it will add a small but steady amount to Americans’ take-home pay—are precisely why it’s more likely to succeed.

Past tax rebates, as many economists have argued in recent weeks, haven’t seemed to boost consumption as much as was hoped. Some estimates suggest that when a rebate was handed out in 2001 less than half of it was spent. And while the results of last year’s rebate seem to have been somewhat more encouraging, much of it still went unspent. One explanation for why rebates don’t have a bigger impact is that they don’t affect what Milton Friedman called people’s “permanent income.” Friedman argued that people’s spending is determined by what they think their income will be over time: they change their spending habits only if they think they’re going to be permanently wealthier or poorer.

The permanent-income hypothesis is elegant, but studies have shown that it’s not always an accurate description of the way people decide how to spend and save. A more compelling explanation for why rebates haven’t worked very well is that they have been handed out as lump sums. You might think that handing people a big chunk of change is a perfect way to get them to spend it. But it isn’t, because people don’t treat all windfalls as found money. Instead, in the words of the behavioral economist Richard Thaler, people put different windfalls in different “mental accounts,” which in turn influences what they do with the money. Where the money comes from can have a big impact on whether people spend it or save it: casino winnings are more likely to be spent than, say, money from an inheritance. The framing of a windfall is important, too: a recent study by the business professors Nicholas Epley and Ayelet Gneezy showed that when a tax rebate was presented as a bonus it was more likely to be spent than when it was presented as a refund. And the size of the windfall matters a lot: the bigger the windfall the more likely it is to be saved. One fascinating study of Israelis who received reparations from Germany found that those who received the biggest payments spent very little of the money, while those who received small payments spent it all.

The key factor in these kinds of distinctions, Thaler’s work suggests, is whether people think of a windfall as wealth or as income. If they think of it as wealth, they’re more likely to save it, and if they think of it as income they’re more likely to spend it. That’s because many people tend to base their spending not on their long-term earning potential or on their assets but on what they think of as their current income, an amount best defined by what’s in their regular paycheck. When that number goes up, so does people’s spending. In Thaler’s words, “People tend to consume from income and leave perceived ‘wealth’ alone.”

So what does this mean for making a rebate work? If you want people to spend the money, you don’t want to give them one big check, because that makes it more likely that they’ll think of it as an increase in their wealth and save it. Instead, you want to give them small amounts over time. And you want the rebate to show up as an increase in people’s take-home pay, because an increase in steady income is more likely to translate into an increase in spending. What can accomplish both of these goals? Reducing people’s withholding payments.

It may seem odd that framing the same policy in different ways will change the way people respond to that policy. But it’s well established that the way choices are framed often has a huge impact on the decisions people make. In a recent experiment, Valrie Chambers and Marilyn Spencer found that, just as Obama’s proposal suggests, people were more likely to spend a tax refund when it was handed out in monthly installments than in one lump payment.

There’s even some history to draw on in this regard. In 1992, the first President Bush temporarily reduced people’s withholding payments. He didn’t cut taxes—people still owed the same amount at the end of the year—but the move made people’s take-home pay look better than it was. In textbook economics, this should have had no impact on spending. Yet one survey suggests that almost half of the people planned to spend most of their rebate. If the effect was that large with a tax cut that didn’t even exist, it should be significantly bigger when the government is handing out real money. On its own, Obama’s rebate plan isn’t going to resurrect the economy. But it’s a policy that works with people as they are, rather than as we imagine they should be. And that’s a stimulus in itself.

_______________________________________

who currently have issues like mergers under scrutiny from the executive branch, so naturally want to be friendly with them.

I fully understand that corporate tax cuts could have positive effects on the broader economy, jobs, wages. The whole story on this is complex (as you in particular know better than any of us here).

But GOP politicians have spent decades trying to sell this lazy story that major corporations would love to give more money to their workers and all they need is a little more profit to make it happen. In reality, decisions like wages are made with a much more complex calculus involving many competing factors. We'll see how that all plays out for real in the coming years (and we can get some insight from past experience and research, not that we're prepared to talk at that level here). Taking press-release wage hikes fully at face value is just asking for political exploitation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-excerpts.html

--------------------------
TRUMP: We’re going to win another four years for a lot of reasons, most importantly because our country is starting to do well again and we’re being respected again. But another reason that I’m going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I’m not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes. Without me, The New York Times will indeed be not the failing New York Times, but the failed New York Times. So they basically have to let me win. And eventually, probably six months before the election, they’ll be loving me because they’re saying, “Please, please, don’t lose Donald Trump.” O.K.
--------------------------

lower rate but can't deduct california property/income taxes so have to use standard deduction now

pretty much a wash

and that's just the short-term effect. long-term, there's probably very few people posting on okp benefiting from cutting taxes the way they did

Rich people get tax cuts and put it in the bank or buy expensive shit like a piece of art that doesn't really ripple through the economy.

You put the same money in poor and middle class peoples hands and they spend it at stores in their hood and help stimulate the local economy in a way people can feel.

Everyone can get table scraps from the rich isn't an economic plan.


>https://www.atr.org/list
>
>lots of companies announcing bonuses or pay raises afterwards.
> Maybe one thing Republicans are doing right? I'm not
>economics savvy at all but trickle down doesn't seem like a
>bad idea to me. I hate pretty much every other stance that
>party has and Trump is a racist misogynist asshat but also
>know a lot of smart people that do agree with their economic
>approach.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

to the point where newly elected moderate repubs and democrats had to form a coalition against extreme repubs to increase taxes and override the governors veto.

dems really missed an opportunity to grab the megaphone and put kansas in national headlines and tattoo that story to the republican party (as well the koch brothers).

=======================================
Coolin...

Scumbag got a $500,000 donation from the Koch Brothers after the tax plan passed.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a15844720/paul-ryan-tax-bill-koch-donation/

I hateeee these animals.

__________________________________________

I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.

— F. Scott Fitzgerald

Companies are more likely to reward shareholders than invest in growth, and the tax cut for the rich will not trickle down, ratings agency forecasts


https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/65A5203E-01E7-11E8-AFB8-908876EC5289?link=sfmw_tw&__twitter_impression=true

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-poll/few-u-s-adults-report-bonuses-raises-from-republican-tax-law-idUSKBN1FI16Q

(Reuters) - Two percent of U.S. adults said they had gotten a raise, bonus or other additional benefits due to the Republican tax law enacted a month ago by President Donald Trump, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday.

Hailed by Republicans as a boost for the middle class, the law is expected to be framed as a win by Trump in his State of the Union address on Tuesday and to be a key theme for both parties headed into November's congressional elections.

While the Internal Revenue Service implements the law, Republicans in the U.S. Congress have been praising businesses, such as Wal-Mart (WMT.N) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), for announcing wage and benefit increases in response to the tax plan.

The full impact of the law will not be known for some time. Businesses' and individuals' 2017 tax returns will not be directly affected. Returns for 2018, when the law takes effect, will not be filed until 2019.

But the Reuters/Ipsos online poll of 5,254 adults done Jan. 12 to 23 offers insights into public perceptions of the law, which is expected to shape the 2018 midterm elections when all 435 House of Representatives seats and a third of 100 Senate seats will be up for grabs.

About 58 percent of U.S. adults surveyed said that large U.S. corporations or wealthy Americans stand to benefit most from the tax legislation. Just 13 percent said the middle class will benefit the most, the poll showed.

Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan pledged the tax bill's benefits would become evident in February. At that time, they said, employees paychecks would grow after IRS tax withholding tables were updated for new tax rates.

But views of the law's impact were decidedly mixed: 24 percent of respondents in the poll said they expected to pay less tax under the new law; 27 percent said they expected to pay more; 23 percent said they expected no change.

Nearly one in four adults said they have tried to estimate the impact of the tax law by consulting with an accountant, a tax professional, their company's payroll department or an online tax calculator, the poll showed. On the elections, about a quarter of adults surveyed said passage of the tax law would not make them more or less interested in voting, the poll showed.

A quarter of those surveyed, including more than half of Republicans, said they were more interested in voting for Republicans because of the law. Just 8 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of independents said the same.

About a third of respondents, including 62 percent of Democrats, said they were more interested in supporting Democrats due to the tax legislation; just 9 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of independents. The poll showed little change in the number of individuals who expect to itemize deductions on their 2018 tax returns versus 2017. One in three said they expected to itemize this year; one in three said they itemized last year. The online poll had a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 2 percentage points.

_______________________________________

The company, which makes Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Ho Hos, announced on Thursday that it is giving employees a one-time bonus of $1,250, with $750 of that in cash and $500 in the form of a 401(k) contribution. In a borderline on-the-nose move, Hostess is also giving employees one free multibox of snacks per week in addition to the small bonus. (Let them eat cake, right?)


https://thinkprogress.org/hostess-hands-out-phony-tax-bill-bonuses-with-a-twist-5e71c981b4ba/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2018/02/ryantweet.jpg?resize=1024,570

https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/03/ryan-tax-cut-tweet/

I'm sure Randy Bryce doesn't actually have much chance of beating this fucker, but I really hope he does.

We see through all that boo boo like it's ghost shit... (c) Quelle Chris

| http://liveguy.bandcamp.com |
| www.soundcloud.com/liveguy |
| www.twitter.com/liveguy |
| www.instagram.com/theREALliveguy |
| XBOX ONE GT: theREALliveguy |

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cxN88pHOMA

but I guess any reduction will do for the time being.