Attention: Ron and others who claim the Tax Reform Act of 2017 will add to the deficit, etc. This story provides MORE proof of the faith of highly qualified financial analysts that the TRA-2017 will yield greater rises in GDP. If you disagree, send a personal letter to the CEOs of these two cos. telling them they are idiots. Remember to enclose your credentials in the letter for added force and weight!
This is rich coming from the guy who consistently questions scientists, acadamics, professionals, and CEOs whenever their positions don’t suit his own…
Nope. You simply made an incorrect judgment on the credibility of the critics. The titles you used are not credible if there is bias in their intention to study and analyze issues. In those cases, they actually are banned from using their titles, as per the organizations issuing the credentials.
Speaking of ‘whenever their positions don’t suit (his) their own’; why were so many executive orders issued by Obama when The People elected a Republican controlled Congress to carry out legislation and state governance is carried out through 30 Republican governors…. and that Congress and set of Governors campaign platforms didn’t suit Obama? hmm?
Almost impossibly clueless as always. The bonuses don’t add to GDP, they won’t increase it. AT&T is giving it to employees that have worked there 20 years, they then laid off thousands of employees. It’s all PR so rubes will repeat it. Good job. Even these companies kiss ip to Trump after these because they know that’s all je cates about and it can get them favorable treatment. Every real analysis said the bill will significantly increase debt, not as always you disregard anything you disagree with offhand.
To be absolutely clear, you lied about your degree to pretend you are competent in this field, you proved you don’t know know what an average is. There’s almost nobody less credible on this topic. Now rant, lie, and whine away… Ready, set, go!
UW, You can recall that he even mentioned a few months back that he doesn’t even work in insurance. He is just a troll, plain and simple. Just look at the way he mentions Executive Orders. He doesn’t even know what Obama issued via Executive Order, how many, or what their effect were. Instead, he probably just heard some blowhard talking about it recently and he is acting like the good little troll in disseminating that upon all of us.
President Obama issued fewer Executive Orders than any president to serve two terms since William McKinley. Even the scope and sway of his EOs were nothing compared to many presidents on both sides of the aisle. Complaining about this is asinine and continues to be stupid and petty.
EO count is irrelevant, as are other aspects of your post. ‘Fewer’ doesn’t mean ‘not as damaging’. Continuing to make personal attacks will result in a harsh action by IJ.
polar,
you have proven on IJ multiple times that personal attacks will not result in harsh action. You have attacked people personally on multiple posts on here. please stop being a hypocrite.
January 19, 2018 at 2:18 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
I should add that you are still here, unless you are affiliated with this sight. I should follow this up with I agree personal attacks should not be on a IJ.
January 17, 2018 at 4:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
7
4
“Almost impossibly clueless as always. The bonuses don’t add to GDP, they won’t increase it. ”
Narcissistic traits. As always being the key words. You don’t accept any part of his belief system.
Also, he didn’t say bonuses will add to the GDP, he said the TRA, do you know what the abbreviation was for? As for the tax cuts, yes, they will add to the GDP, but more importantly it will have people work to get 1.5 trillion vs simply receive it. When the government gives benefits it does not create. When businesses instead disperse GDP to those same people, their work creates more GDP.
Apple did precisely what I said they would with these savings, and I said the precise amount January of 2017 to my brother. I thought they would repatriate $250 billion totaling from 20 billion to 30 billion in revenues, they in fact repatriated $350 billion at the same ratios, making it smack in the center adjusted for the additional amount brought back, $38 billion.
I have said this before, you either get a percentage of nothing, or you get 21% now of $350 billion. 20,000 jobs are being created, and the government is receiving $38 billion.
” It’s all PR so rubes will repeat it. Good job. Even these companies kiss ip to Trump after these because they know that’s all je cates about and it can get them favorable treatment.”
Even if it is kissing up, that kissing up gives a lot of people jobs and more money. Everyone benefits. I’d rather kiss up and get part of the $350 billion than none of it. Your attitude is why businesses want nothing to do with the U.S. and has harmed the middle class.
“Every real analysis said the bill will significantly increase debt, not as always you disregard anything you disagree with offhand.”
Own it’s own, tax cuts will always do this, though some of the amount will be lessened it will never decrease debt. With government mandated spending coming down by default, and then reductions in line with the new money in the hands of the middle class however, it will decrease debt. Just because your side refuses to cut does not mean we shouldn’t create an environment for people to work for their living.
“To be absolutely clear, you lied about your degree to pretend you are competent in this field, you proved you don’t know know what an average is.”
Nothing about what he said above was said about averages. You are using your credentials and do often, and lie about them often (projection) to state that you understand numbers others will quote. This is a sleazy debate tactic.
“There’s almost nobody less credible on this topic. Now rant, lie, and whine away… Ready, set, go!”
This is ego, and possibly psychopathy. You’re antagonizing any possible reply, if he replies, you’ve already prepared to destroy him. His reply is not an assault on you (unless you’re a narcissist which is evident) and given your proclivity to get hostile when someone does reply to you in a way you don’t like, and the fact that you said violence is an acceptable form of civil disobedience (which is a form of sadim) I think you might actually be a triad of the three traits that are dangerous as hell, and this is why I’ve said that you literally are a threat here.
I do not know why insurance journal continues to allow you to wreck havoc here.
“Scram” = fear of being completely refuted, repeatedly. Lefties and Libitterals have hopes of censorship of opposing views, but little else they can do to sustain their lies.
UW, who is pathetic? I think it is you, dude. Bob’s comments are always worth the read and he is respected on this blog. Yours, not so much and you just come off as hateful insults.
Bonuses are based on projected, continuing growth. Sure, they are typically paid AFTER good results. More bonuses will follow. GDP HAS grown and WILL CONTINUE to grow, despite your wish for it to NOT grow. The attitude of those resisting Trump/ Congress is unhealthy and unAmerican because it wishes for BAD ECONOMIC RESULTS rather than positive results.
No reply? I thought I’d get down votes and waited for them to reply.
Companies do not dispense cash or stock option bonuses NOW if they are unsure of the future results. If FUTURE results wipe out past profits, those bonus payments cannot be used to cover the losses. GDP growth projections are beginning to irk Libitterals who can’t defend their claims of deficits and bad times ahead due to TAX CUTS.
So let me get this straight P bear. The employees of Travelers get $1,000 in bonuses each as a result of a tax roll back that will cost all Americans $1.5 trillion, and they got this bonus from an organization that paid the 2 top execs over $11 million in bonuses in 2016 (see proxy statement). SO the employees get $.50 per hour in bonus money while the big guys get over $2,700 per hour in bonuses.
You have to love the Making America great again way. Throw the little guy a bone while I become my own Mutual Fund. BTW the $11million is only their cash bonus. It does not include the value of their stock bonus.
Nope. You didn’t get it straight. It’s TRAVELER’S & HARTFORD’S money, not taxpayer’s money. Can’t fool a smarter than average polar bear that easily.
I’m sad they paid their top execs so little compensation relative to the value they added to their respective companies, on behalf of stockholders. Only a few mortals are able to add value to such complex financial institutions involved in many product lines. Got a 401k? Highly diversified mutual funds? If so, YOU WIN!
Polar, you can always tell a Progressive poster in about one sentence they type. By the way, the bonuses being paid are just in addition to having larger checks each pay day. Hey Progressives, it is all good.
“It’s TRAVELER’S & HARTFORD’S money, not taxpayer’s money.” Then why are they crediting the tax cuts? If the US has to borrow money in order to fund the tax cuts that lead to these bonuses, which is the case here, then it is coming from taxpayer money.
Ron, how about waiting until summer or fall before making another stupid statement on the tax law? The ink is hardly even dry on the document. We have seen the numerous announcements by corporations and employees will be overjoyed with their increased income.
Polar is he one inferring that I am wrong NOW in my prediction that the tax law WILL NOT reduce the debt. Basic comprehension would deduce that he is claiming that the debt is currently going down.
I have even agreed that the tax cuts will lead to greater GDP growth. I just do not believe the growth will be sufficient to pay for the cuts. Nobody KNOWS if that is true or not today.
I have stated multiple times that I want to re-visit the debt in 3 years to see whose prediction was right.
Fair enough?
January 17, 2018 at 9:23 am
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
4
8
One cannot prove a negative. Enjoy your solo journey down your self-created rabbit hole. The Tax Reform LAW of 2017 is NOT the only LAW that will be enacted to reduce the debt…. as if that mattered to Libitterals.
January 17, 2018 at 10:42 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
I did not ask you top prove a negative. Just prove that the debt is currently decreasing. Either that or admit that you were premature in stating that my prediction is wrong.
January 17, 2018 at 11:26 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
Does this mean that you are admitting that the tax cuts themselves will not lead to enough growth to reduce the debt?
I agree with you regarding the need for spending cuts. Just waiting for your party to start proposing serious cuts that do not negatively impact the most vulnerable.
January 18, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Nope. You are trying to create fictional scenarios. The present foretells of favorable GDP growth. Dispute that, as it is the central point of this article.
@Ron; The Hartford & The Travelers simply don’t send in to the US Treasury as much money in income taxes as they would have if the TRA-17 wasn’t passed. Voila! The money from premiums and investment income is used to pay bonuses, etc. Can’t fool a smarter than average polar bear that easily.
Or it could simply be that people disagree with you but have no interest in engaging in a “conversation” or “debate” with you regarding your asinine arguments
Nope. It couldn’t be that because YOU exemplify someone who is making a claim I am wrong, and you engaged in debate of the point about replying vs. down voting (instead of the subject issue). If you can’t state succinctly why I am wrong, and can only down vote, then, until proven otherwise in the future, you must assume I’m right.
So, what is wrong with my assessment that those two insurers are retaining more of THEIR revenues instead of sending it to the US Treasury? What is the justification for anyone claiming that REVENUE from premiums, inv inc, etc. BELONGS TO US TAXPAYERS?
So let me get this straight, JMS. During 8 years of Obama there were NO tax cuts for the middle class and NO bonuses as well. But health care costs went way up along with the ACA.
And you think the current situation is somehow worse?
There were 3 tax increases on the “rich” during the Obama years, so you must be very happy about that. Even if it did absolutely nothing to help the middle class.
Oh wait. You care more about hurting rich people than you care about helping regular people? Well in that case, you must be a “Progressive”. . .
Obama cut taxes for about 98% of all taxpayers. Healthcare prices increased by less than projected without Obamacare. You don’t know what you are talking about: stop posting and read some actual analysis, or stop following politics.
Just hilarious, man. Obama simply extended the BUSH Tax Cuts, which he criticized while he was campaigning, and then he tried to make it look like his idea all along. Everybody know this. I’m amazed you don’t.
And Obama repeatedly promised that every family would see a “$2,500. premium reduction” from Obamacare, and then premiums kept rising. Everybody knows that one too. You don’t know that one either?
Good one Craig. Do you remember the former POTUS telling business – You didn’t build that? Guess what, corporations will be doing a lot of building in the coming years with tax reform, getting rid of terrible regulations from Progressive bureaucrats.
One of our greatest economists, the formidable Milton Friedman once said – I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible. He was brilliant and he knew what a boost to the economy that it would be as is being proven currently every single day of the week. Trump must have studied him in college.
Hey Cut, you may want to try cutting your bias and stopping with the nasty insults. I do realize you may still be weeping that your side lost the election and can’t get over it.
January 16, 2018 at 12:59 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
10
“So let me get this straight P bear. The employees of Travelers get $1,000 in bonuses each as a result of a tax roll back that will cost all Americans $1.5 trillion, and they got this bonus from an organization that paid the 2 top execs over $11 million in bonuses in 2016 (see proxy statement). SO the employees get $.50 per hour in bonus money while the big guys get over $2,700 per hour in bonuses.”
Let me get this straight, because there is any disparity in income (will always exist in a capitalist nation) we may as well take the 1.5 trillion, regardless of any impact on the middle class?
What we are seeing is that the 1.5 trillion in cuts, will almost certainly be outweighed by how much is added to the economy, and will then be available to those who work and make more GDP for all. In the long run, the middle class benefits through what they can earn, rather than what they receive. There is a reason behind this economically.
By the way:
You are neglecting to go over how much of the 1.5 trillion is coming from middle class tax cuts, and that it is over 10 years. This is one of many increases to come, in point 1. In point 2: As I have said numerous times, the tax cuts will allow my wife to get back to work. Many in the middle – upper class just keep their wife at home. It’s not worth it. But with the expanded child tax credit, and with the bracket changes, this will allow for dual earner well educated couples to have a huge advantage, especially during child rearing years which usually removes them from the work force and has them fall behind and less likely to re-enter.
I have explained this many times. Especially in the $80,000 to $150,000 range, with kids, tax cuts were needed. These families would be 2 software engineers, 2 architects, 2 accountants, 2 pharmaceuticals, 2 specialized nurses, 2 paralegals, 2 people with even 2 year degrees. What’s the point in spending $15k-$35k on an education you finance when you will at the same time be spending that money on kids and daycare, with one of you not working? It makes life hell for years. With my kids the last 5 years has been hell, and this will make an $8,000 dollar swing, including my wife working again in my positive favor, or actually, even above that, depending on what job she chooses to get and if I decide to get her further education.
As I said numerous times, I don’t make $2,700 per hour compared to .50 cents for employees. This will be the biggest part of this bill, getting people back to work, and then the lower corporate tax rates will allow businesses to provide rather than the government. It’s the economy, stupid, which should provide. When we spend 40% of GDP including local, state, and federal, that is what makes life harder. You cannot possibly think that is low spending which doesn’t impede growth. It needs to be tax cuts, spending cuts, in tandem.
“What we are seeing is that the 1.5 trillion in cuts, will almost certainly be outweighed by how much is added to the economy”
Every legitimate economic analysis says otherwise. You can’t calculate basic percentages, but you’ve overturned basically every economist, as always. Sad
Agent, global warming is an outdated term climate change is the correct version because the climate is changing. There are many intelligent scientists that agree this is a real thing, but this is a debate for another time. I agree with UW that one cannot say this plan will almost certainly be outweighed by how much is added by the fact that no one on here, from my understanding, is an economist with enough background in this to weigh in accurately. Most economists are in agreement that the situation you described is very unlikely to happen.
January 17, 2018 at 9:22 am
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
3
9
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 4
Thumb down 14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Nope. You didn’t get it straight. It’s TRAVELER’S & HARTFORD’S money, not taxpayer’s money. Can’t fool a smarter than average polar bear that easily.
I’m sad they paid their top execs so little compensation relative to the value they added to their respective companies, on behalf of stockholders. Only a few mortals are able to add value to such complex financial institutions involved in many product lines. Got a 401k? Highly diversified mutual funds? If so, YOU WIN!
As usual, the day that UW comes to the page, my likes go to 6 negative to 1 like.
Not a confidence.
And yes, I have a lot of experience and logics that I think demonstrate this better than your average conservative. Thank you. It’s good to know that it has an effect and It’s not just my own mind that sees it as relevant.
I’m not personally worried about it. I’m worried about what will happen if people insist on silencing the other side instead of debate.
I’ve seen the youth do this a lot. My siblings, college grads, etc. The college grad is the most concerning.
Isn’t college about seeking out as much knowledge as possible and questioning every section of your belief to make it stronger?
I believe a college education is the best thing you can have in the world, when coupled with the desire and thirst for knowledge of all things. When I see people who block out aspects of knowledge I get afraid for society.
In this way I suppose I’m like a classic liberal. I don’t know what has happened. You’re older, aren’t you? You probably know what I’m talking about with regards to classic liberalism. There are at least some of us in the younger age group who want a return to it.
January 19, 2018 at 5:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
It’s one of Reagan’s famous quotes actually. The Berkeley protests commentary.
Perhaps the people that didn’t support Trump will now just donate to a charity their bonuses plus some of the record returns their 401k plans have seen in last 12 months?
Nope. They’ll invest it in America, and donate it to charity, and spend some of it to create market demand for certain goods and services OF THEIR CHOICE…. instead of seeing it go to welfare benefits that aren’t means tested, and to Illegal Immigrants who didn’t earn it.
I am not against people getting tax breaks who will put the money into the economy. But when do we start paying down the debt? If President Trump is right, and I have no reason to doubt him, we have been experiencing an improving economy and job growth without borrowing $1.5 trillion.
Let’s see where the debt is in 3 years and then revisit this debate. If it is down, then I will admit that I was wrong. If it is still increasing, will you admit that you were wrong?
The debt will continue to go up as long as Congress continues to spend far more than the taxes they levy. Remember, the President proposes, the Congress disposes.
We don’t have a budget deficit because our taxes are too low. We have a deficit because Congress spends too MUCH.
I do not. Please explain. When have you or any private organization ever reduce income prior to reducing expenses when attempting to reduce their debt?
There have been more tax cut bills signed than budgets that reduce spending. Why is that?
Sorry Ron, but a country cannot tax their way to prosperity as Progressives have been doing for decades. It has been and always will be an inhibitor to economic success. Wake up and smell the coffee.
January 16, 2018 at 11:53 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
10
Reducing taxes increases the need to reduce the current level of expenses.
I refuse to answer your silly questions about companies KEEPING THEIR REVENUES (not TAKING TAX REVENUE from the US TREASURY).
The US Federal government has the power to tax. Companies DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE CONSUMERS TO CONSUME THEIR PRODUCT (except, for the last 7 years, health insurance). Your extrapolation of this argument to taxation is both wrong and futile. You cannot fool a smarter than average polar bear.
correction; extrapolation of your rabbit hole argument to company bonuses and raises. bear in haste. bear culpa.
January 17, 2018 at 10:46 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
9
1
If the fact that our debt is over $20.6 trillion and growing is not motivation enough to reduce spending, all members of Congress need to be replaced.
January 17, 2018 at 11:04 am
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Like or Dislike:
2
7
Nope. It’s been increasing and Dems never were concerned. But Republicans are doing something about it indirectly by decreasing taxes, reducing regulations, growing GDP, and, eventually, cutting wasteful spending on fraud & corrupt social insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Sec).
January 18, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Cut the Bias says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Republicans are doing something about the debt by decreasing taxes?
Wow… the cognitive dissonance is astounding.
The “something” they are doing is rapidly increasing the debt by increasing the deficit. If, for some reason, unfathomable by all sane economists (on both sides of the economic theory aisle, mind you), that the economy grows by such a massive degree as to overcome the massive decrease in tax receipts.
Nobody is disputing that people will have more money in their pockets, but how much will giving people between $20 more per paycheck or something of that sort actually effect the economy? The ones keeping by far the most are those who have already chosen to hoard it, sometimes across generations.
To really spur the economy and GDP, the middle class should have seen massive tax cuts. Piddly bonuses given to select employees to be used as PR wins to cover for firing other employees just won’t cut it.
January 18, 2018 at 4:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
“Nobody is disputing that people will have more money in their pockets, but how much will giving people between $20 more per paycheck or something of that sort actually effect the economy? The ones keeping by far the most are those who have already chosen to hoard it, sometimes across generations. ”
Incorrect. The difference here is often offset in blue states. It’s 37.5 vs 39.6%. This is not a huge cut.
Corporate tax rates affect all in the corporation, so your above comment doesn’t apply, and the lower corporate tax rate does indeed spur more available capital to business and the middle class.
“To really spur the economy and GDP, the middle class should have seen massive tax cuts.”
The lower half already pay zero. You cannot spur them further. What will really spur the economy and GDP is incentivizing people to get a career with a wife, and to both make $100k as software engineers, instead of telling them they can work at starbucks, make $30k each a year, have zero taxes, and in blue states, have all their healthcare, day care, and other aspects covered by the government. This is why the GDP is stagnant. The productive class is not being incentivized. They are being penalized.
“Piddly bonuses given to select employees to be used as PR wins to cover for firing other employees just won’t cut it.”
Nor will bringing back 350 billion of corporate revenues to provide $38 billion in 5 years to the U.S? That is one corporation at 12.5 billion per year roughly. Take the top 100 and you could get to a considerable sum. It is very possible the corporate tax rate won’t be the reason behind the deficit increases. It is very possible that the very income range I spoke of will be, but again, that can be offset by using the GDP growth to provide and cutting back on the government. Each time the government gives out a benefit it does it without requirement for service. They should not be managing the flow of 40% of the GDP.
Reducing taxes for the income range and child tax credit we did were direly needed. Our corporate tax rate reduction was direly needed. Our marginal rate change was minimal.
You are creating a catch 22. We can’t have jobs without lower rates, we can’t have lower deficits without lower rates too by your equation, so we must increase them, but then we can’t have jobs. It strangles the economy. 40% is too high.
January 22, 2018 at 1:02 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
So Polar, what do you think of the move that the dysfunctional California is doing by raising taxes on their citizens/business to offset the reductions of taxes by the Federal Government? I am sure that will be popular. They already have the highest income taxes in the country at 13.5%. Hey, let’s make it 20% or more and further hurt the citizens. What a joke!
January 16, 2018 at 10:41 am
Cynthia Brown says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
1
And how many employees did AT&T lay off after they provided the $1,000 bonuses?
AT LEAST 2,000 (which includes those fired immediately before and after the tax plan was approved): 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16. Announcement came days after … the company fired more than 700 DirecTV home installers. Also reported that AT&T has recently laid off 215 high-skilled technician jobs in nine Southern states. Also reported that AT&T and plans to fire nearly 700 workers in Texas and Missouri beginning in February.
Cynthia asked a straight-forward and direct question (sans insults, attacks and nastiness), and I provided the answer. If you have further questions about AT&T layoffs and their location, as well as their hiring counts in other places or other inquiries of that nature, I respectfully ask you to use google and do your own research.
I see you are posting talking points instead of the full story. The firing & hiring is a re-allocation of staff. See the internet for details, avoiding liberal websites.
Sorry – not sorry … Cynthia simply asked for an overall number, which I provided. As you’re not actually arguing the numbers I posted are wrong, I’ve got nothing else to say to you about this right now.
January 18, 2018 at 5:35 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
Polar, sure glad we are regaining our freedoms in this country and companies are free to allocate or re-allocate their resources to have a successful business without Big Brother looking over their shoulder. This new Apple deal will be huge, wait and see.
January 18, 2018 at 5:10 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
“AT LEAST 2,000 (which includes those fired immediately before and after the tax plan was approved): 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16. Announcement came days after … the company fired more than 700 DirecTV home installers. Also reported that AT&T has recently laid off 215 high-skilled technician jobs in nine Southern states. Also reported that AT&T and plans to fire nearly 700 workers in Texas and Missouri beginning in February.”
If they fired them it has to do with market demand. You wouldn’t fire 215 high skilled technicians if they weren’t needed, but, with more capital available you might give raises to those who are.
These would happen regardless of president. The 7,000 dedicated hires as a result of Trump’s tax plan would not. The company will hire and fire as many people as they need, and move them around.
Taxation can indeed impact how much they have remaining during such shifts. Again: All corporate revenues you could get through marginal rates. So why not restrict it to marginal rates? The corporate code will by default hit the whole business. It makes no sense.
If you want to make a $1/m earnings tax of even 60%, I might even support it at that point.
Instead, what you’re doing is saying that corporate tax rates won’t help people and try to dance around the help they do, which I won’t allow.
1) Literally or figuratively? Come on child, you’re better than that.
“…your whiny “I won’t let you” retort is out of line.”
2) Uh huh. Since I LITERALLY copied the “which I won’t allow” part from your comment, I guess you’re whiny too.
“and the context was whether or not the corporate tax rate actually added jobs.”
2) Nope. Cynthia simply asked for the number of jobs AT&T has lost since giving out the bonuses and I gave her that number with no editorializing. I just posted a “here’s the number you wanted to know” response.
3) You are not making REASONABLE assumptions – you’re just making assumptions….which I already acknowledged (What YOU are doing is…not taking my posts at face value, and putting words & thoughts in my mouth).
How many times do I need to ask you — when I post something, take it at face value and don’t read it thinking I have an ulterior motive.
Got a question about what I meant? Just ask me and I’ll tell you. Posting “I know what you’re doing here – it’s not right and here’s why you’re wrong” is immature, you’re consistently inaccurate when you do it to me, is known as making straw-man arguments, and will never allow you to understand what I’m actually trying to say.
By the way: At the end it was one line you are ticked off about, and you hyper focused on this:
“Instead, what you’re doing is saying that corporate tax rates won’t help people and try to dance around the help they do, which I won’t allow.”
So it isn’t dancing around the help a corporate tax rate reduction has allowed, to try and go over numbers that were asked for to show that the 7,000 jobs added are offset by job losses?
It is definitely a response that dances around and refuses to admit to any benefits of a lower corporate tax rate. The second part of that statement is entirely reasonable. The first part, when I say what you’re doing is, is an expression. It is summing up what your actions are doing. Your actions are essentially showing (or saying) that corporate tax rates do not help people.
Neither of these were unreasonable comments to make, and the reason I came back asking if you were mental, in retort, was how much you dove off the deep end over it.
Have you just been hiding this behavior? You didn’t used to do it. Were you waiting for me to slip up so you could gun at me? What in the world just occurred Rosenblatt? Are you ticked at me from something?
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
You forgot this one. Ask Andrew to review ALL posts. Not multiple accounts, multiple names. BIG difference from those who BOTTED before IJ installed software to block it.
Despite what your inside sources say, there were never any BOTs infiltrating this site to censor conservative ideas. The bots were too busy investigating chemtrails and lizard people.
Leave Andrew alone. He’s way too busy to monitor all of the bickering and sniping at each other on this site. If you kids can’t play nice, get out of the sandbox. If you spent as much time building each other up as you spend tearing each other down, you’d be much happier.
Bob, you and Rosenblatt are both getting a little word parsy on this forum. It is called making a mountain out of a mole hill. Both of you should just let it go. By the way, hundreds of companies are hiring, expanding and giving employees bonuses, contributing to the 401K and raising salaries. That is a FACT!
bob, I don’t think we will have to wait very long to see the effects. By the end of 2018, this economy will look ever so much better than it ended in 2017.
Remember Occam’s Razor? Often, the least complicated solution is the best. Progressives just word parse every issue to death and we have seen what kind of condition they left the country in. Looking forward to the State of the Union address and happy Maxine Waters will not be there.
FFA, the people carping about this Tax Reform Law are the naysayers who don’t believe the country is doing much, much better now and united in their hatred of this President. I think the 91% of the Middle Class who will get a tax break will just love it and by June after several months getting a better pay check, the polling will be overwhelmingly favorable unless the polls are just polling liberals who hate our President too much to give in.
As you have said on more than one occasion. Obama made Trump necessary.
FFA, our employees are looking forward to that better check starting in Feb.
Regarding the Vikes, they were extremely lucky to get that Hail Mary on the last play of the game. I do like them and hope they get to the Super Bowl and if so, like a home game in their stadium.
Attention: Ron and others who claim the Tax Reform Act of 2017 will add to the deficit, etc. This story provides MORE proof of the faith of highly qualified financial analysts that the TRA-2017 will yield greater rises in GDP. If you disagree, send a personal letter to the CEOs of these two cos. telling them they are idiots. Remember to enclose your credentials in the letter for added force and weight!
This is rich coming from the guy who consistently questions scientists, acadamics, professionals, and CEOs whenever their positions don’t suit his own…
Hypocrisy? Nahhhh
Nope. You simply made an incorrect judgment on the credibility of the critics. The titles you used are not credible if there is bias in their intention to study and analyze issues. In those cases, they actually are banned from using their titles, as per the organizations issuing the credentials.
Speaking of ‘whenever their positions don’t suit (his) their own’; why were so many executive orders issued by Obama when The People elected a Republican controlled Congress to carry out legislation and state governance is carried out through 30 Republican governors…. and that Congress and set of Governors campaign platforms didn’t suit Obama? hmm?
Does that standard apply to everyone or just you?
Almost impossibly clueless as always. The bonuses don’t add to GDP, they won’t increase it. AT&T is giving it to employees that have worked there 20 years, they then laid off thousands of employees. It’s all PR so rubes will repeat it. Good job. Even these companies kiss ip to Trump after these because they know that’s all je cates about and it can get them favorable treatment. Every real analysis said the bill will significantly increase debt, not as always you disregard anything you disagree with offhand.
To be absolutely clear, you lied about your degree to pretend you are competent in this field, you proved you don’t know know what an average is. There’s almost nobody less credible on this topic. Now rant, lie, and whine away… Ready, set, go!
UW, You can recall that he even mentioned a few months back that he doesn’t even work in insurance. He is just a troll, plain and simple. Just look at the way he mentions Executive Orders. He doesn’t even know what Obama issued via Executive Order, how many, or what their effect were. Instead, he probably just heard some blowhard talking about it recently and he is acting like the good little troll in disseminating that upon all of us.
President Obama issued fewer Executive Orders than any president to serve two terms since William McKinley. Even the scope and sway of his EOs were nothing compared to many presidents on both sides of the aisle. Complaining about this is asinine and continues to be stupid and petty.
EO count is irrelevant, as are other aspects of your post. ‘Fewer’ doesn’t mean ‘not as damaging’. Continuing to make personal attacks will result in a harsh action by IJ.
polar,
you have proven on IJ multiple times that personal attacks will not result in harsh action. You have attacked people personally on multiple posts on here. please stop being a hypocrite.
I should add that you are still here, unless you are affiliated with this sight. I should follow this up with I agree personal attacks should not be on a IJ.
“Almost impossibly clueless as always. The bonuses don’t add to GDP, they won’t increase it. ”
Narcissistic traits. As always being the key words. You don’t accept any part of his belief system.
Also, he didn’t say bonuses will add to the GDP, he said the TRA, do you know what the abbreviation was for? As for the tax cuts, yes, they will add to the GDP, but more importantly it will have people work to get 1.5 trillion vs simply receive it. When the government gives benefits it does not create. When businesses instead disperse GDP to those same people, their work creates more GDP.
Apple did precisely what I said they would with these savings, and I said the precise amount January of 2017 to my brother. I thought they would repatriate $250 billion totaling from 20 billion to 30 billion in revenues, they in fact repatriated $350 billion at the same ratios, making it smack in the center adjusted for the additional amount brought back, $38 billion.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/01/17/apple-pays-38-billion-trump-tax-bill-open-second-hq/1041261001/
I have said this before, you either get a percentage of nothing, or you get 21% now of $350 billion. 20,000 jobs are being created, and the government is receiving $38 billion.
http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/the-big-list-of-tax-cut-payoffs/
They weren’t the only ones.
” It’s all PR so rubes will repeat it. Good job. Even these companies kiss ip to Trump after these because they know that’s all je cates about and it can get them favorable treatment.”
Even if it is kissing up, that kissing up gives a lot of people jobs and more money. Everyone benefits. I’d rather kiss up and get part of the $350 billion than none of it. Your attitude is why businesses want nothing to do with the U.S. and has harmed the middle class.
“Every real analysis said the bill will significantly increase debt, not as always you disregard anything you disagree with offhand.”
Own it’s own, tax cuts will always do this, though some of the amount will be lessened it will never decrease debt. With government mandated spending coming down by default, and then reductions in line with the new money in the hands of the middle class however, it will decrease debt. Just because your side refuses to cut does not mean we shouldn’t create an environment for people to work for their living.
“To be absolutely clear, you lied about your degree to pretend you are competent in this field, you proved you don’t know know what an average is.”
Nothing about what he said above was said about averages. You are using your credentials and do often, and lie about them often (projection) to state that you understand numbers others will quote. This is a sleazy debate tactic.
“There’s almost nobody less credible on this topic. Now rant, lie, and whine away… Ready, set, go!”
This is ego, and possibly psychopathy. You’re antagonizing any possible reply, if he replies, you’ve already prepared to destroy him. His reply is not an assault on you (unless you’re a narcissist which is evident) and given your proclivity to get hostile when someone does reply to you in a way you don’t like, and the fact that you said violence is an acceptable form of civil disobedience (which is a form of sadim) I think you might actually be a triad of the three traits that are dangerous as hell, and this is why I’ve said that you literally are a threat here.
I do not know why insurance journal continues to allow you to wreck havoc here.
Repeated personal attacks will result in loss of access to IJ.
“Scram” = fear of being completely refuted, repeatedly. Lefties and Libitterals have hopes of censorship of opposing views, but little else they can do to sustain their lies.
UW, who is pathetic? I think it is you, dude. Bob’s comments are always worth the read and he is respected on this blog. Yours, not so much and you just come off as hateful insults.
Bonuses are based on projected, continuing growth. Sure, they are typically paid AFTER good results. More bonuses will follow. GDP HAS grown and WILL CONTINUE to grow, despite your wish for it to NOT grow. The attitude of those resisting Trump/ Congress is unhealthy and unAmerican because it wishes for BAD ECONOMIC RESULTS rather than positive results.
No reply? I thought I’d get down votes and waited for them to reply.
Companies do not dispense cash or stock option bonuses NOW if they are unsure of the future results. If FUTURE results wipe out past profits, those bonus payments cannot be used to cover the losses. GDP growth projections are beginning to irk Libitterals who can’t defend their claims of deficits and bad times ahead due to TAX CUTS.
So let me get this straight P bear. The employees of Travelers get $1,000 in bonuses each as a result of a tax roll back that will cost all Americans $1.5 trillion, and they got this bonus from an organization that paid the 2 top execs over $11 million in bonuses in 2016 (see proxy statement). SO the employees get $.50 per hour in bonus money while the big guys get over $2,700 per hour in bonuses.
You have to love the Making America great again way. Throw the little guy a bone while I become my own Mutual Fund. BTW the $11million is only their cash bonus. It does not include the value of their stock bonus.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Polar, you can always tell a Progressive poster in about one sentence they type. By the way, the bonuses being paid are just in addition to having larger checks each pay day. Hey Progressives, it is all good.
Please provide PROOF that the debt has gone down since the law was signed.
Here is my proof that it is still rising:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
“It’s TRAVELER’S & HARTFORD’S money, not taxpayer’s money.” Then why are they crediting the tax cuts? If the US has to borrow money in order to fund the tax cuts that lead to these bonuses, which is the case here, then it is coming from taxpayer money.
Ron, how about waiting until summer or fall before making another stupid statement on the tax law? The ink is hardly even dry on the document. We have seen the numerous announcements by corporations and employees will be overjoyed with their increased income.
Agent,
Polar is he one inferring that I am wrong NOW in my prediction that the tax law WILL NOT reduce the debt. Basic comprehension would deduce that he is claiming that the debt is currently going down.
I have even agreed that the tax cuts will lead to greater GDP growth. I just do not believe the growth will be sufficient to pay for the cuts. Nobody KNOWS if that is true or not today.
I have stated multiple times that I want to re-visit the debt in 3 years to see whose prediction was right.
Fair enough?
One cannot prove a negative. Enjoy your solo journey down your self-created rabbit hole. The Tax Reform LAW of 2017 is NOT the only LAW that will be enacted to reduce the debt…. as if that mattered to Libitterals.
I did not ask you top prove a negative. Just prove that the debt is currently decreasing. Either that or admit that you were premature in stating that my prediction is wrong.
Does this mean that you are admitting that the tax cuts themselves will not lead to enough growth to reduce the debt?
I agree with you regarding the need for spending cuts. Just waiting for your party to start proposing serious cuts that do not negatively impact the most vulnerable.
Nope. You are trying to create fictional scenarios. The present foretells of favorable GDP growth. Dispute that, as it is the central point of this article.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Or it could simply be that people disagree with you but have no interest in engaging in a “conversation” or “debate” with you regarding your asinine arguments
Confused for the win!
Nope. It couldn’t be that because YOU exemplify someone who is making a claim I am wrong, and you engaged in debate of the point about replying vs. down voting (instead of the subject issue). If you can’t state succinctly why I am wrong, and can only down vote, then, until proven otherwise in the future, you must assume I’m right.
So, what is wrong with my assessment that those two insurers are retaining more of THEIR revenues instead of sending it to the US Treasury? What is the justification for anyone claiming that REVENUE from premiums, inv inc, etc. BELONGS TO US TAXPAYERS?
So let me get this straight, JMS. During 8 years of Obama there were NO tax cuts for the middle class and NO bonuses as well. But health care costs went way up along with the ACA.
And you think the current situation is somehow worse?
There were 3 tax increases on the “rich” during the Obama years, so you must be very happy about that. Even if it did absolutely nothing to help the middle class.
Oh wait. You care more about hurting rich people than you care about helping regular people? Well in that case, you must be a “Progressive”. . .
Brilliant Craig. Couldn’t have said it any better.
You could post a fact instead of incorrect nonsense.
Obama cut taxes for about 98% of all taxpayers. Healthcare prices increased by less than projected without Obamacare. You don’t know what you are talking about: stop posting and read some actual analysis, or stop following politics.
Define “Increase sharply”
I don’t call getting 20 bucks a check more in take home pay a “sharp increase” in fact, it will do nothing for me.
Just hilarious, man. Obama simply extended the BUSH Tax Cuts, which he criticized while he was campaigning, and then he tried to make it look like his idea all along. Everybody know this. I’m amazed you don’t.
And Obama repeatedly promised that every family would see a “$2,500. premium reduction” from Obamacare, and then premiums kept rising. Everybody knows that one too. You don’t know that one either?
Talking about actual analysis . . .
Good one Craig. Do you remember the former POTUS telling business – You didn’t build that? Guess what, corporations will be doing a lot of building in the coming years with tax reform, getting rid of terrible regulations from Progressive bureaucrats.
One of our greatest economists, the formidable Milton Friedman once said – I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it is possible. He was brilliant and he knew what a boost to the economy that it would be as is being proven currently every single day of the week. Trump must have studied him in college.
Did Milton Friedman look like Ivanka? If so, you may actually be right…
Hey Cut, you may want to try cutting your bias and stopping with the nasty insults. I do realize you may still be weeping that your side lost the election and can’t get over it.
“So let me get this straight P bear. The employees of Travelers get $1,000 in bonuses each as a result of a tax roll back that will cost all Americans $1.5 trillion, and they got this bonus from an organization that paid the 2 top execs over $11 million in bonuses in 2016 (see proxy statement). SO the employees get $.50 per hour in bonus money while the big guys get over $2,700 per hour in bonuses.”
Let me get this straight, because there is any disparity in income (will always exist in a capitalist nation) we may as well take the 1.5 trillion, regardless of any impact on the middle class?
What we are seeing is that the 1.5 trillion in cuts, will almost certainly be outweighed by how much is added to the economy, and will then be available to those who work and make more GDP for all. In the long run, the middle class benefits through what they can earn, rather than what they receive. There is a reason behind this economically.
By the way:
You are neglecting to go over how much of the 1.5 trillion is coming from middle class tax cuts, and that it is over 10 years. This is one of many increases to come, in point 1. In point 2: As I have said numerous times, the tax cuts will allow my wife to get back to work. Many in the middle – upper class just keep their wife at home. It’s not worth it. But with the expanded child tax credit, and with the bracket changes, this will allow for dual earner well educated couples to have a huge advantage, especially during child rearing years which usually removes them from the work force and has them fall behind and less likely to re-enter.
I have explained this many times. Especially in the $80,000 to $150,000 range, with kids, tax cuts were needed. These families would be 2 software engineers, 2 architects, 2 accountants, 2 pharmaceuticals, 2 specialized nurses, 2 paralegals, 2 people with even 2 year degrees. What’s the point in spending $15k-$35k on an education you finance when you will at the same time be spending that money on kids and daycare, with one of you not working? It makes life hell for years. With my kids the last 5 years has been hell, and this will make an $8,000 dollar swing, including my wife working again in my positive favor, or actually, even above that, depending on what job she chooses to get and if I decide to get her further education.
As I said numerous times, I don’t make $2,700 per hour compared to .50 cents for employees. This will be the biggest part of this bill, getting people back to work, and then the lower corporate tax rates will allow businesses to provide rather than the government. It’s the economy, stupid, which should provide. When we spend 40% of GDP including local, state, and federal, that is what makes life harder. You cannot possibly think that is low spending which doesn’t impede growth. It needs to be tax cuts, spending cuts, in tandem.
“What we are seeing is that the 1.5 trillion in cuts, will almost certainly be outweighed by how much is added to the economy”
Every legitimate economic analysis says otherwise. You can’t calculate basic percentages, but you’ve overturned basically every economist, as always. Sad
UW, your statement is about as valid as the disgraced Climate Scientists saying we have Global Warming.
Agent, global warming is an outdated term climate change is the correct version because the climate is changing. There are many intelligent scientists that agree this is a real thing, but this is a debate for another time. I agree with UW that one cannot say this plan will almost certainly be outweighed by how much is added by the fact that no one on here, from my understanding, is an economist with enough background in this to weigh in accurately. Most economists are in agreement that the situation you described is very unlikely to happen.
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 4
Thumb down 14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Nope. You didn’t get it straight. It’s TRAVELER’S & HARTFORD’S money, not taxpayer’s money. Can’t fool a smarter than average polar bear that easily.
I’m sad they paid their top execs so little compensation relative to the value they added to their respective companies, on behalf of stockholders. Only a few mortals are able to add value to such complex financial institutions involved in many product lines. Got a 401k? Highly diversified mutual funds? If so, YOU WIN!
MIRA – Make Investors Richer, Again!
Reply
Well said, bob! Thanks for the informative details!
As usual, the day that UW comes to the page, my likes go to 6 negative to 1 like.
Not a confidence.
And yes, I have a lot of experience and logics that I think demonstrate this better than your average conservative. Thank you. It’s good to know that it has an effect and It’s not just my own mind that sees it as relevant.
bob, not to worry if we get down voted so much by the leftist element on this forum. We aren’t tired of winning.
I’m not personally worried about it. I’m worried about what will happen if people insist on silencing the other side instead of debate.
I’ve seen the youth do this a lot. My siblings, college grads, etc. The college grad is the most concerning.
Isn’t college about seeking out as much knowledge as possible and questioning every section of your belief to make it stronger?
I believe a college education is the best thing you can have in the world, when coupled with the desire and thirst for knowledge of all things. When I see people who block out aspects of knowledge I get afraid for society.
In this way I suppose I’m like a classic liberal. I don’t know what has happened. You’re older, aren’t you? You probably know what I’m talking about with regards to classic liberalism. There are at least some of us in the younger age group who want a return to it.
It’s one of Reagan’s famous quotes actually. The Berkeley protests commentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggUeDa48V4g
Nobody tries to argue with a brick wall plastered with graffiti, but they can disapprove of it.
Showing you the fault of your opinions with fact does nothing to help you improve your positions, so why would anyone waste time trying to debate you?
Perhaps the people that didn’t support Trump will now just donate to a charity their bonuses plus some of the record returns their 401k plans have seen in last 12 months?
Nope. They’ll invest it in America, and donate it to charity, and spend some of it to create market demand for certain goods and services OF THEIR CHOICE…. instead of seeing it go to welfare benefits that aren’t means tested, and to Illegal Immigrants who didn’t earn it.
addendum to post above: …But they won’t admit to it.
What blizzard?
I am not against people getting tax breaks who will put the money into the economy. But when do we start paying down the debt? If President Trump is right, and I have no reason to doubt him, we have been experiencing an improving economy and job growth without borrowing $1.5 trillion.
Let’s see where the debt is in 3 years and then revisit this debate. If it is down, then I will admit that I was wrong. If it is still increasing, will you admit that you were wrong?
The debt will continue to go up as long as Congress continues to spend far more than the taxes they levy. Remember, the President proposes, the Congress disposes.
We don’t have a budget deficit because our taxes are too low. We have a deficit because Congress spends too MUCH.
Agreed.
Which is why I said we need to address spending before tax cuts. That includes the POTUS, regardless of party affiliation.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I do not. Please explain. When have you or any private organization ever reduce income prior to reducing expenses when attempting to reduce their debt?
There have been more tax cut bills signed than budgets that reduce spending. Why is that?
Sorry Ron, but a country cannot tax their way to prosperity as Progressives have been doing for decades. It has been and always will be an inhibitor to economic success. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Reducing taxes increases the need to reduce the current level of expenses.
I refuse to answer your silly questions about companies KEEPING THEIR REVENUES (not TAKING TAX REVENUE from the US TREASURY).
The US Federal government has the power to tax. Companies DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE CONSUMERS TO CONSUME THEIR PRODUCT (except, for the last 7 years, health insurance). Your extrapolation of this argument to taxation is both wrong and futile. You cannot fool a smarter than average polar bear.
correction; extrapolation of your rabbit hole argument to company bonuses and raises. bear in haste. bear culpa.
If the fact that our debt is over $20.6 trillion and growing is not motivation enough to reduce spending, all members of Congress need to be replaced.
Nope. It’s been increasing and Dems never were concerned. But Republicans are doing something about it indirectly by decreasing taxes, reducing regulations, growing GDP, and, eventually, cutting wasteful spending on fraud & corrupt social insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Sec).
Republicans are doing something about the debt by decreasing taxes?
Wow… the cognitive dissonance is astounding.
The “something” they are doing is rapidly increasing the debt by increasing the deficit. If, for some reason, unfathomable by all sane economists (on both sides of the economic theory aisle, mind you), that the economy grows by such a massive degree as to overcome the massive decrease in tax receipts.
Nobody is disputing that people will have more money in their pockets, but how much will giving people between $20 more per paycheck or something of that sort actually effect the economy? The ones keeping by far the most are those who have already chosen to hoard it, sometimes across generations.
To really spur the economy and GDP, the middle class should have seen massive tax cuts. Piddly bonuses given to select employees to be used as PR wins to cover for firing other employees just won’t cut it.
“Nobody is disputing that people will have more money in their pockets, but how much will giving people between $20 more per paycheck or something of that sort actually effect the economy? The ones keeping by far the most are those who have already chosen to hoard it, sometimes across generations. ”
Incorrect. The difference here is often offset in blue states. It’s 37.5 vs 39.6%. This is not a huge cut.
Corporate tax rates affect all in the corporation, so your above comment doesn’t apply, and the lower corporate tax rate does indeed spur more available capital to business and the middle class.
“To really spur the economy and GDP, the middle class should have seen massive tax cuts.”
The lower half already pay zero. You cannot spur them further. What will really spur the economy and GDP is incentivizing people to get a career with a wife, and to both make $100k as software engineers, instead of telling them they can work at starbucks, make $30k each a year, have zero taxes, and in blue states, have all their healthcare, day care, and other aspects covered by the government. This is why the GDP is stagnant. The productive class is not being incentivized. They are being penalized.
“Piddly bonuses given to select employees to be used as PR wins to cover for firing other employees just won’t cut it.”
Nor will bringing back 350 billion of corporate revenues to provide $38 billion in 5 years to the U.S? That is one corporation at 12.5 billion per year roughly. Take the top 100 and you could get to a considerable sum. It is very possible the corporate tax rate won’t be the reason behind the deficit increases. It is very possible that the very income range I spoke of will be, but again, that can be offset by using the GDP growth to provide and cutting back on the government. Each time the government gives out a benefit it does it without requirement for service. They should not be managing the flow of 40% of the GDP.
Reducing taxes for the income range and child tax credit we did were direly needed. Our corporate tax rate reduction was direly needed. Our marginal rate change was minimal.
You are creating a catch 22. We can’t have jobs without lower rates, we can’t have lower deficits without lower rates too by your equation, so we must increase them, but then we can’t have jobs. It strangles the economy. 40% is too high.
So Polar, what do you think of the move that the dysfunctional California is doing by raising taxes on their citizens/business to offset the reductions of taxes by the Federal Government? I am sure that will be popular. They already have the highest income taxes in the country at 13.5%. Hey, let’s make it 20% or more and further hurt the citizens. What a joke!
And how many employees did AT&T lay off after they provided the $1,000 bonuses?
AT LEAST 2,000 (which includes those fired immediately before and after the tax plan was approved): 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16. Announcement came days after … the company fired more than 700 DirecTV home installers. Also reported that AT&T has recently laid off 215 high-skilled technician jobs in nine Southern states. Also reported that AT&T and plans to fire nearly 700 workers in Texas and Missouri beginning in February.
Where were the other jobs located? How many were overseas?
You have details by state, which show their analyses tell them where they were OVERstaffed.
Do you want to also post the hiring plans for OTHER states, or is that against your agenda?
Cynthia asked a straight-forward and direct question (sans insults, attacks and nastiness), and I provided the answer. If you have further questions about AT&T layoffs and their location, as well as their hiring counts in other places or other inquiries of that nature, I respectfully ask you to use google and do your own research.
Please provide analysis and studies showing they were overstaffed. Lol jk, you can’t.
I see you are posting talking points instead of the full story. The firing & hiring is a re-allocation of staff. See the internet for details, avoiding liberal websites.
Sorry – not sorry … Cynthia simply asked for an overall number, which I provided. As you’re not actually arguing the numbers I posted are wrong, I’ve got nothing else to say to you about this right now.
Polar, sure glad we are regaining our freedoms in this country and companies are free to allocate or re-allocate their resources to have a successful business without Big Brother looking over their shoulder. This new Apple deal will be huge, wait and see.
“AT LEAST 2,000 (which includes those fired immediately before and after the tax plan was approved): 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16. Announcement came days after … the company fired more than 700 DirecTV home installers. Also reported that AT&T has recently laid off 215 high-skilled technician jobs in nine Southern states. Also reported that AT&T and plans to fire nearly 700 workers in Texas and Missouri beginning in February.”
If they fired them it has to do with market demand. You wouldn’t fire 215 high skilled technicians if they weren’t needed, but, with more capital available you might give raises to those who are.
These would happen regardless of president. The 7,000 dedicated hires as a result of Trump’s tax plan would not. The company will hire and fire as many people as they need, and move them around.
Taxation can indeed impact how much they have remaining during such shifts. Again: All corporate revenues you could get through marginal rates. So why not restrict it to marginal rates? The corporate code will by default hit the whole business. It makes no sense.
If you want to make a $1/m earnings tax of even 60%, I might even support it at that point.
Instead, what you’re doing is saying that corporate tax rates won’t help people and try to dance around the help they do, which I won’t allow.
” You just possibly literally lost your head”
1) Literally or figuratively? Come on child, you’re better than that.
“…your whiny “I won’t let you” retort is out of line.”
2) Uh huh. Since I LITERALLY copied the “which I won’t allow” part from your comment, I guess you’re whiny too.
“and the context was whether or not the corporate tax rate actually added jobs.”
2) Nope. Cynthia simply asked for the number of jobs AT&T has lost since giving out the bonuses and I gave her that number with no editorializing. I just posted a “here’s the number you wanted to know” response.
3) You are not making REASONABLE assumptions – you’re just making assumptions….which I already acknowledged (What YOU are doing is…not taking my posts at face value, and putting words & thoughts in my mouth).
How many times do I need to ask you — when I post something, take it at face value and don’t read it thinking I have an ulterior motive.
Got a question about what I meant? Just ask me and I’ll tell you. Posting “I know what you’re doing here – it’s not right and here’s why you’re wrong” is immature, you’re consistently inaccurate when you do it to me, is known as making straw-man arguments, and will never allow you to understand what I’m actually trying to say.
My mistake — I wrote “2)” twice when laying out my points.
By the way: At the end it was one line you are ticked off about, and you hyper focused on this:
“Instead, what you’re doing is saying that corporate tax rates won’t help people and try to dance around the help they do, which I won’t allow.”
So it isn’t dancing around the help a corporate tax rate reduction has allowed, to try and go over numbers that were asked for to show that the 7,000 jobs added are offset by job losses?
It is definitely a response that dances around and refuses to admit to any benefits of a lower corporate tax rate. The second part of that statement is entirely reasonable. The first part, when I say what you’re doing is, is an expression. It is summing up what your actions are doing. Your actions are essentially showing (or saying) that corporate tax rates do not help people.
Neither of these were unreasonable comments to make, and the reason I came back asking if you were mental, in retort, was how much you dove off the deep end over it.
Have you just been hiding this behavior? You didn’t used to do it. Were you waiting for me to slip up so you could gun at me? What in the world just occurred Rosenblatt? Are you ticked at me from something?
I apologize for being so defensive with you. Agent’s right. Let’s not go any further on this one.
IJ, Andrew, please delete and ban the spammers that post the same exact comment repeatedly.
UW,
Agreed 100%. To me it also seems polar has multiple accounts on here as well, 2 within this post:
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears
PolarBeaRepeal
You forgot this one. Ask Andrew to review ALL posts. Not multiple accounts, multiple names. BIG difference from those who BOTTED before IJ installed software to block it.
Despite what your inside sources say, there were never any BOTs infiltrating this site to censor conservative ideas. The bots were too busy investigating chemtrails and lizard people.
Leave Andrew alone. He’s way too busy to monitor all of the bickering and sniping at each other on this site. If you kids can’t play nice, get out of the sandbox. If you spent as much time building each other up as you spend tearing each other down, you’d be much happier.
Bob, you and Rosenblatt are both getting a little word parsy on this forum. It is called making a mountain out of a mole hill. Both of you should just let it go. By the way, hundreds of companies are hiring, expanding and giving employees bonuses, contributing to the 401K and raising salaries. That is a FACT!
Ok ok. You’re right.
I want to see the effects long term. I have to say I was excited from what I saw to date.
bob, I don’t think we will have to wait very long to see the effects. By the end of 2018, this economy will look ever so much better than it ended in 2017.
Remember Occam’s Razor? Often, the least complicated solution is the best. Progressives just word parse every issue to death and we have seen what kind of condition they left the country in. Looking forward to the State of the Union address and happy Maxine Waters will not be there.
“That’s just, like, your opinion, man.” -J. “T.D.” L.
Good news for people and nothing but a pissing match between the usual players.
Take the money and run!
Hoping for a Vikes V Pats SB.
FFA, the people carping about this Tax Reform Law are the naysayers who don’t believe the country is doing much, much better now and united in their hatred of this President. I think the 91% of the Middle Class who will get a tax break will just love it and by June after several months getting a better pay check, the polling will be overwhelmingly favorable unless the polls are just polling liberals who hate our President too much to give in.
As you have said on more than one occasion. Obama made Trump necessary.
FFA, our employees are looking forward to that better check starting in Feb.
Regarding the Vikes, they were extremely lucky to get that Hail Mary on the last play of the game. I do like them and hope they get to the Super Bowl and if so, like a home game in their stadium.
Nice capitalization, just like Trump at about a 5th grade level.
Why don’t these carriers give a bonus to their agents?
Actually, they do. It is called a Contingency bonus for good production and good loss ratio. We expect a record amount this year.
Travelers Bumped up the Commish on Comp to 20%. Best in the industry.