Add FedEx and Home Depot to the list of who are trickling down

a reply to: introvert

One is tax driven and the other is market driven. Basic economics.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: TheRedneck

We went from 8 years of, "You didn't build that" to "Want to build something?"

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich

originally posted by: Painterz
Meanwhile, how's that national debt looking?

Dems had 8 years to reduce the debt, but instead doubled it with ZERO help to the working class.

In just couple of months the tax cut has helped more Americans than anything Obama did in 8 years.

They had a super majority, and didn't even pass a budget.

I don't understand this belief that those who wish to raise taxes will actually try to reduce the debt, when history now shows the opposite.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd

No, it's not a COLA and not a salary increase. The full extent of the tax cuts won't be known for some time, so no one is going to go full steam ahead before the exact numbers come out. A bonus represents something, though: it shows the business in question is secure enough in their market position and has enough concern about retaining employees to give out a bonus. That means a lot.

They're being used as more of a political thing than any real representation of market position and strength - or so it appears. Given the extreme gap between worker and CEO pay (take a sec and eyeball those graphics) - the companies can easily afford this kind of bonus simply to make a statement or make a news splash.

Corporate culture has changed in the time we've been in the workforce. Companies are no longer loyal to their workers and often outsource many things. The end result is that their profits are not really trickling down to the workers but flooding off to the stockholders and CEOs.

A pay raise means very high confidence that the long-term prospects are good and that the job market competition is expected to continue to increase long term. In other words, the difference between deciding to give a bonus and to give a raise is one of short-term versus long term.

In general I agree, but FedEx (and many others) appear to be gaming the system. In the case of FedEx, the salary boosts are achieved simply by moving up already planned increases by six months.

To quote from one of the news releases

FedEx said it expects the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will increase the country's GDP and overall investment in the United States. That said, it intends to increase employee compensation by more than $200 million, about two-thirds of which will go to hourly employees by moving annual pay increases up by six months.
source[/ ex]

Either way, it is money in the pockets of Americans, who will save some and use some to buy things they want/need. That might be eating out an extra night a week, meaning more restaurant workers will be needed and restaurants will make more profit. It might be a new bedroom suite (or just a new mattress), which means more furniture will need to be made, requiring more people to make it. It might be the difference in buying a new car instead of a used car, helping out in the rust belt (and other locations that the auto industry has located in). Maybe it's just buying better food... that will surely make a little difference in medical bills down the road.

(chuckle) and by this we can both tell that we've both "been there and done that." When I think of what these raises mean, that's exactly where I go... maybe another night you can take the kids out for burgers or maybe new tires for the car before a trip.

You also forget that the bonuses are not everything the workers get. They also will see a dropped tax rate (which will kick in next month) meaning less deducted from their paychecks. That works just like a raise. At tax time, they will see an increased personal deduction, which should lead to more of a refund next year. If, as many including me suspect, the increasing job market continues, they will begin to see pay increases as well, to help insure employee retention.

We'll have to see what comes of this. Remember the cuts aren't permanent and there's cuts coming in some programs.

I'm still struggling with how something that let's 90% of workers keep more of theirmoney is being spun as a negative.

As I said in another thread, the narrative on this and otherwise definitely seems to be "no matter how good this might be for you or how good your standard of living is, the real story is that those bourgie capitalists are taking advantage of you". I mean the left in America has now taken to preaching the immiseration of the proletariat from Marx's Manifesto as one of their talking points.

Don't remind anyone of how good they've got it. Make sure you tell them they're being exploited.

a reply to: Byrd

They're being used as more of a political thing than any real representation of market position and strength - or so it appears. Given the extreme gap between worker and CEO pay (take a sec and eyeball those graphics) - the companies can easily afford this kind of bonus simply to make a statement or make a news splash.

Yes, the Lorentz Curve is way too sharp right now. But the solution is not to decrease the money CEOs get... that'll never happen... but rather to increase the money the workers get. Either way relaxes the Lorentz Curve, and the latter is actually possible.

The Golden Rule of Economics: He who has the gold makes the rules. It is simply a fact that by increasing pressure on those in the top percentiles of income, they will be forced into extreme measures to maintain their status. If that means letting the little guys under them suffer, so be it. No government has ever managed to financially harm those under it without ruining the country in the process. Even if those fat cats are harmed, they can leave... the workers don't have the means to simply pick up roots and move to another country.

The main pressure we have placed on the top percentile comes in the form of regulations and taxes. Every single regulation costs money to comply with; overly high taxes mean it is harder for a company to earn a profit. Companies and the CEOs who run them answer to the shareholders, who expect a profit; they don't care how benevolent or malevolent the CEO is. If there's no profit, the money gets moved to where there is a profit and the share value drops. Businesses close all the time because of this very thing, and a business closing means no jobs for workers or CEOs.

Not to mention, the regulation that costs $50,000 to comply with means nothing to a company with $50,000,000 in sales... but to a new company expecting to net $100,000 in sales, that's the same as a 50% tax off the top. So regulations can easily be used to encourage monopolies, and we are all aware of how bad a monopoly is for the average Joe.

In general I agree, but FedEx (and many others) appear to be gaming the system. In the case of FedEx, the salary boosts are achieved simply by moving up already planned increases by six months.

Of course they're gaming the system! That goes without saying. No matter what policies are put into play, every company with the means to do so will game the system. It's simply a fact of life.

But if we put that aside as a given, those workers are going to get an extra 6 months of the pay increase. That is not a bad thing.

...by this we can both tell that we've both "been there and done that." When I think of what these raises mean, that's exactly where I go... maybe another night you can take the kids out for burgers or maybe new tires for the car before a trip.

Yes, yes I have. And I don't like "being there." I assume you don't either. So why is giving people extra money to not "be there" a bad thing again?

We'll have to see what comes of this. Remember the cuts aren't permanent and there's cuts coming in some programs.

We haven't had permanent tax cuts for individuals for quite some time now. That's nothing new.

As for the cuts, there is an extreme amount of waste in most government programs, and as a successful businessman, Trump is used to cutting waste to the bone while still getting the desired results. It's what he does. Like you, I'm waiting to see how much he can cut from the fattest pig in the market: government.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

Supply and demand will dictate prices. Competition.

Not in a Monopolistic economy. The Corporatocracy run by Oligarchs squash all competition.

That's why we booted out the left...and hopefully many on the right, as well. We don't need a TPP. We need opportunity and that we are getting, more and more, almost daily with Trump's moves.

You'll never see the bigger picture if you only see right vs. left.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

Supply and demand will dictate prices. Competition.

Not in a Monopolistic economy. The Corporatocracy run by Oligarchs squash all competition.

That's why we booted out the left...and hopefully many on the right, as well. We don't need a TPP. We need opportunity and that we are getting, more and more, almost daily with Trump's moves.

You'll never see the bigger picture if you only see right vs. left.

I just said both. There are a few on the 'right' that have some possibilities, but not many.

Nation first, not party.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The company I work for is pretty bad about raises (unless it's through a promotion), typically 2% which is less than COL. However, each year they do give a 4% bonus to all employees. Crediting the tax cuts that was extended to 4%+$500 this year. Which is effectively 8% given the wage of the majority of factory workers.

It's a nice bonus to be sure, but it's also a one time only thing. Raising wages would be a far better indicator in giving back.

a reply to: Nickn3

Where is that confidence coming from though? It it based on actual financials? We've added fewer jobs this year, than any of the previous 16 years. We haven't "renegotiated" any trade deals, but we've specifically been excluded from a few. Wages are down. Coal mining is quietly dying, considered solved with none of the issues actually addressed. And we've got several economic bubbles on the verge of bursting.

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

Is Fed Ex or Home Depot going to reduce prices to the consumer for goods and services? Is the gubmet going to decrease sales tax any, at all?

Which is a better system?

Gubment takes more of my money that I worked for directly and I can't buy goods I need to live.

OR

Gubment lets me have more of my hard earned money and I can buy goods that I need to live and they end up getting their money in sales tax anyway?

The one that creates a social safety net when you're unable to earn sufficient money.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But if we put that aside as a given, those workers are going to get an extra 6 months of the pay increase. That is not a bad thing.

...by this we can both tell that we've both "been there and done that." When I think of what these raises mean, that's exactly where I go... maybe another night you can take the kids out for burgers or maybe new tires for the car before a trip.

Yes, yes I have. And I don't like "being there." I assume you don't either. So why is giving people extra money to not "be there" a bad thing again?

Agreed that more money in the hands of the people can be good - what concerns me is that the super-wealthy get a new set of tax breaks handed out to them (they don't need it) and the threats to cuts for social services. I realize we differ here.

a reply to: nwtrucker

A bonus is not upward mobility. That comes from performing more important jobs that you're interested in, as well as reliable income. One time bonuses are neither.

a reply to: Aazadan

That makes sense. I'd prefer the raise as well. I guess that aspect will come down to individual worth for you.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

A bonus is not upward mobility. That comes from performing more important jobs that you're interested in, as well as reliable income. One time bonuses are neither.

I didn't suggest it was. Of course, your right.

My point was beyond these money 'spiffs', if this continues and even grows, the general economy, then instead of mere survival with a few more 'toys', actual hope for a future might loom for people. Improvement and, as you say, promotion or even better jobs.

We had that once. It looks just a little less grim right now.

a reply to: Byrd

Based on the personal exemption raise and the tax bracket changes, I don't see how the wealthy are getting a greater tax break than the middle class. Many in the middle class are getting a 100% tax break since their personal exemption now means they will no longer pay any income tax. Others are seeing their tax brackets lowered on what's left. The higher tax brackets have barely lowered at all.

Add in that the tax package does things like increasing child care tax credits and reinstating the educational expense deductions/credits that expired this past year (both of which are peanuts for the wealthy but big for the middle class), and you have some pretty good tax cuts for those middle class people trying to move upward. The amounts they will save will of course likely be lower than the amounts saved by the wealthy, but it is simple math that 1% of $10,000,000 is greater than 10% of $100,000. Percentage-wise, the major tax cuts are going to the middle class.

I know a lot of people want to add in the major drop in corporate taxes to the wealthiest's tax cuts, but that is simply not accurate. Corporations are not people. The beneficiaries of those are the shareholders, which include everyone from investors to Granny Jones living on her dead husband's pension, and the workers who might get to see a stronger job market which would favor pay raises and better working conditions.

We may disagree, Byrd, but it's nice to debate with someone who can do so and not be disagreeable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Bravo.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The best is this tweet from nancy pelosi talking about obama extending the payroll tax holiday:
"Today's agreement is a victory for the American people-they spoke out clearly & #40dollars each paycheck will make a difference."

LINK

Now do the math. if most people get paid on the 1st and 15th, that works out to be............ $960 in a year! Less than the $1,000 bonuses she's railing against now.

a reply to: Painterz

Meanwhile, how's that national debt looking?

The day trump took over it was $19.948T. One year later it is $20.493T. If it keeps that pace, in 8 years Trump will have accumulated $4.36T. While it's not great, it's less than bush added and less than half of what obama added.

BUT, I expect tax receipts will balloon, spending to fall, and the deficit to turn to surplus to start chipping away at this massive pile the predecessors left.