Walmart , where full time employees need food stamps and have no health care except for what ever the nation/state provides. Anything that lauds Walmart`s performance when it is the poster child in undermining the US economy, eg massive importing of goods made in China vs locally made is ludicrous.
4
The point is this, if business in made more profitable in the United States, more business will be done here. The demand for and price of labor will increase. Businesses that don't raise wages will loose people to those who do. Its that simple. We are also decreasing the less important regulations, further increasing the profitability.
For those who claim automation will assure labor will never come back, consider that in the face of Automation manufacturing has increased in companies like China, India, and Mexico.
Also consider in spite of the fact that automation has increased enormously in female labor participation has increased dramatically.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_labor_force_fro...
"In 1940, 28% of women over 14 participated in the labor force while men over the age of 10 had a 96% workforce participation rate.[3]
, female participation in the labor force increased dramatically."
We have had massive automation improvement in virtually all ares and a similar amount of people working. This is partly explained by the massively increased sophistication and complexity of products. 5 X productivity is canceled by 5 complexity. Comparing the model T to a modern care, the modern car has AC, ABS, air backs, GPS, collision avoidance, emission controls, shoulder belts, automatic starting, ... If we drove cars no more sophisticated than the model T, we would not need many people making them. But we don't
Members and guests at Mar-a-Lago all got a lot richer. The rest of us didn't. And I figure all the old loopholes remaining in the new corporate tax rate will lower it from the published 21% to something like 5%. Problem is, all those Walmart workers will still need food stamps. And Amazon has proved that wages for forklift drivers and other order-fillers drop by 30% wherever it builds a distrbution center. See https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21735020-worlds-largest-onl...
1
The #1 task of "Human Resources" departments is to figure out the MINIMUM they can pay workers before unacceptable numbers of them quit. Generosity, 'trickle down', or how much the company can afford has never been part of the equation.
13
The GOP has told us: numerous Congressmen said they needed the tax cuts or their donors would cut them off. This is EXACTLY why the tax bill is skewed to the wealthiest and corporations. (Not to mention, most Congressmen fall into the wealthy category themselves and added bits and pieces for self-profit -- Corker, Johnson, Trump.....)
9
Another day another censored comment. Can't disrupt the narrative too much now can we? Private club.
6
Dear Apple, I've been a devoted customer for many years. I've put up with some glitches and defended your brand to my friends and colleagues, but there is a limit. IMHO, Pandering to this administration will do more damage to your brand than good. Innovation means taking a stand, how far you have fallen since Jobs.
10
This is very simple. I got a profit sharing bonus equal to almost my 401k max amount once Trump passed this. This never happened under Obama. Half this country is invested in stocks, thus investors are enjoying the gains are sharing a in this rise.
I see zero liberals at work protesting and giving the money back or donating it. Funny how that works. Maybe all this dirty Trump money is not so dirty when it is your bank account.
The Times cant let a crazy amount of business investment get in the way of its narrative. For what it is worth, when Apple announced its investment, it was nowhere on the front page; I had to search for it on The Times because that falls under positive Trump news.
10
Guess you weren't around for the 233% gain of the S&P under Obama's presidency? Wanna bet that will beat, by far, any gain under Rump's? Wait until the deficit explodes...Rump will lose 1/2 his base.
12
Half the country owns stock? Where do you get your numbers?
The only way I get sustained and beneficial raises are when the unemployment is low and guess what is has been low for years and that is why I got a good raise under Obama not Bush. I haven't gotten anything but a tax raise due to trump and his kleptocratic administration.
I donate a lot of money every year to charity so you probably don't know any liberals and just like to make stuff up and thus have Zero creditability.
9
Clearly, you have not been paying attention in the the already announced commitment by Republican leaders in both the Senate and House, in which ALL of these benefits and tax cuts, you are so thrilled about will, before too long, ultimately, come at the expense of what is left of America's social safety net, medicare, overall healthcare and social security, you can count on it.
Then you will have to worry about all that financial de-regulation that is happening AGAIN that created the 2008 financial meltdown in the first place, doesn't happen, because if it does(and it will), all that growth in your 401K will disappear before your eyes.
your eyes.
13
Sure, eating the seed corn fills a lot of stomachs, today.
But when those trillions are no longer in the treasury, and the poor need medical care, or food, or housing...
When Putin and his billionaire buddies stole Russia for themselves, it was the pensioners and war veterans who stood on street corners begging.
Corporations are running the GOP and they got what they wanted, a looting of the treasury, so now Trump is not really needed.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
18
Like Ross Perot once said in one of his infomercials describing Reaganomics; The Trickle Down stops right there!"
5
The question to answer is: do we want American businesses to have a tax rate competitive with the rest of the world? I guess the NYT editorial board and most of the commenters do not.
Of course if a Democratic President had proposed this, the NYT editorial board and commenters would have thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
“The smell of mendacity fills the air”.
8
"...many economists say that most of those gains will actually flow to shareholders and top executives."
Right... and as Shaw said "if all the economists were laid end-to-end they'd never reach a conclusion." Quoting economists is like quoting the bible - there's always a passage that fits whatever case you're trying to make.
"It will add about $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, and many poor and middle-class families will pay more taxes over time."
Yes - Per the same "economists" whose model doesn't include the resulting growth from the decreased tax rates that will offset forward deficits.
BTW, corporations don't pay taxes - they pass them on to their customers.
"... the company is spending... $4 billion buy back stock, which will benefit investors..."
Yes - and by far WMT's largest shareholders are mutual funds, 401K, pubic employee retirement funds, unions, etfs and other funds that benefit the middle class.
"And it is worth keeping in mind that WMT also raised wages when tax rates were higher under President Barack Obama."
Yes - and it's worth keeping in mind, since you brought up spin, that was a massive PR effort while the company was being lambasted by Obama and media like... you.
What you're not addressing is the new tax law knowingly allows companies to acquire competitors. M&A leads to loss of jobs "do more with less". Why was there no subsequent tax on M&A?
6
I'd just mention to the "a rising tide lifts all boats," the, "that $1.5 trillion scare number represents about one year of BHO's deficits," the, "well, we get more in taxes than we woulda if we didn't give corporations so much of a break," and the "Trump's a genius who won in a landslide," contingent...
It's not so much that you're factually wrong, though of course you are: it's that I'm still waiting for any of you to 'splain how YOU, PERSONALLY, have benefitted, or how YOUR OWN TOWN's now doing better.
I did like the guy who claimed that his employees saw lower taxes last month, given that even those minor tax cuts don't cut in till February at the earliest.
Oh, well. This Way To The Egress, I guess.
9
What happened to Trump’s campaign against carried interest? The new tax laws have papered over this issue and have done zero to change it. Another broken promise, and avoidance of doing something meaningful.
10
These $1000 bonuses to certain employees amounts to $19 a week. Oddly enough, last year that was the amount we were paid for our bonus. No raise. Our chancellor expected us to come to her office and personally pick up our checks. I hadn't been physically handed a pay check since waitressing as a teenager. There's nothing more nauseating than big businesses trying to act like they are being generous to their employees while those on top just keep on getting more wealthy.
13
More and more "universities," including some public universities, are turning into businesses like Trump University... Here's a piece of paper of decreasing value if you'll sit through some on-line or in situ classes taught by "adjunct professors" who make $2500 per course on contract, with no benefits, while the institution's top administrators pay themselves absurd amounts, pat themselves on the back, and give themselves bonuses for "making a profit," much of which is dependent of their customers borrowing money under usurious terms. A scam and a racket.
8
So... the GOP made the tax cuts despite the fact that there is no evidence that they will help anyone except the plutocrats. How is this different from ANY action taken thus far by the GOP?
6
If Trump and the Republicans truly wanted to help the middle class and provide tax cuts to corporations, they could have tied tax cuts to investments in people rather than stock buy backs and mega bonuses for their top tier. I'm sure the financial geniuses in Washington could have figured out a way to scale corporate tax breaks based on hiring, wages, and benefits for employees. The more a company or corporation gives to their workers, the less they have to pay in taxes.
The more a corporation invests in its actual growth by increasing output, building additional space, in other words, actually creating new jobs, the less they pay in taxes.
History has shown, more than a few times, that trickle down economics is a fallacy. The cream always floats to the top. The middle class and below get water. This time will be no different. Only the scale will be much greater.
While the immediate results of the tax cuts may seem encouraging, the end result will prove the irresponsibility and greed that abounds in Washington. Rather than drain the swamp, Trump has replaced it with a cesspool.
Thank you Mr. President.
7
Can you picture a corporate board room last year, reviewing numbers, determining shareholder dividends, bonuses for the CEO and other top management, and whether or not to upgrade the corporate jet, then saying "and if only the government would reduce the corporate tax rate, we could pay our workers more" -?
I can't.
15
jg
I have been in those meetings and it is just the opposite. How do we control costs - don't give out raises or give them very little. Even when the company is making super profits and the bosses are taking home a half a million a month they still quibble over a 4% raise on some one making $15/hr. The rich can never have enough and they don't want to share with others. We need to control our own labor in this country but you are owned by the CEO's and Owners of American businesses. It is really disgusting that Americans accept the income inequality as the right of the 1% to be lords and masters over the rest of us.
Wake up America
12
Pay increases for the average workers, now that is laughable. Walmart pays so low now their workers are on food stamps which of course benefits Walmart. Republicans plan for the Farm Bill will cut food stamps. Who will lose on that deal, BOTH Walmart and the workers. Companies are not increasing wages for the average Joe.
8
Less important than the GOP tax cut from 35% to 21% is the change to territorial taxation. Why, because 35% or 21% of nothing is...nothing. It's the tax base stupid. In the future, multinational corporations will be able to say, with a straight face, that their US operations are just not that profitable and, so sorry to report, we don't owe any, if any, significant corporate income taxes - federal or state.
Read the US Supreme Court's 1980 Exxon v. Wisconsin decision. Exxon reported losses for 4 years in that state, taking the position that only their marketing division had a presence in Wisconsin and, per Exxon's internal accounting and tax department, that division was losing money despite Wisconsin sales of over $60 million for the years in question. This is what the future will be under territorial taxation. Watch the 2016 BBC documentary "The Town that Took on the Taxman" on YouTube. It's about how multinationals avoid Britain's 20% corporate income tax by shifting profits to the Netherlands and the Isle of Man...all under territorial taxation.
3
While the media and business continue to speculate about whether or not tax cuts will further boost the economy and create jobs, for some reason, all are ignoring how in the first year of a Trump Presidency has "in reality" negatively affected the overall tourism business in America where millions of jobs are at stake that ultimately, are just as real as any other job.
So far, a 4% drop in particularly foreign tourism, has resulted in the loss of
40,000 American jobs which the tourism bureau expects to increase going forward. These numbers are the reality, not speculation and conversely, how does this compare to the "alleged" increase in jobs claimed by Trump and Republicans wih their one and a half trillon tax "gift" given primarily to the wealthy and corporations?
4
Silicon Valley panicked after the Dot com bust, and there was a wage freeze until 2008, when things got even worse. Almost 15 years of no raises, or at best 1-2% cost of living raises, for most engineers. Yet during that time the Tech CEO's got regular 10% annual raises because it was "essential to retain them".
10
In addition to wage hikes, consumers should be demanding product price cuts.
Remember, the GOP argument against corporate tax HIKES has always been,"Companies will merely pass the hike on to consumers."
Shouldn't that work in reverse as well?
Demand your price cuts NOW!
9
Exactly what I thought when the legislation passed. When were prices of products we buy going to go down? I knew the tax cuts would simply go into the CEO's pockets. It would be interesting to see how CEO's salaries compared to the corporations' rank and file workers' pay by decade since 1930.
4
This is a pretty good summary of the impact of corporate tax cuts, and the discount corporations received on repatriating dollars. Most of that money will be use to buyback shares and increase dividends, because the boards of directors have a fiduciary duty first to their shareholders, not their employees.
Very little has been done for the lower and middle classes, who would use tax cuts to increase spending or pay down debt. That would also raise stock prices while at the same time helping those who are struggling.
Alas, that will have to wait for a Congress and Administration run by Dems. And even then, Dems are more prone to raise taxes than cut them.
In the meantime, the middle class continues to erode. Businesses ultimately have little to gain if they lose customers.
8
I'm a '91 recession grad who never really recovered, buffeted by toxic mix of always paycheck-to-paycheck w/ concomitant vulnerability to any setback (med bill, litigation, brutal episode in a nexus of intractably dysfunctional family relationships: "attend such-&-such family event, however difficult, or you're banished!!!"). From the outset, at the mercy of human whim/ruthlessness, & perfect storms of savage luck, like computer breakdowns (or lack of funds to get a suit pressed or a haircut (or interrupted phone service, or lack of busfare) on the eve of an interview or application deadline. That pattern set in graduating college (quite a prestigious one) in '91, when I saw gaunt former classmates in ragged, more loose-fitting clothes like mine. "Sauvez qui peut."
Some relied on (none avail. to me:) family help, or riding out the recession in "internships" or collecting a master's degree, beyond accruing a marketable credential avoiding that ultimate job applicant albatross: the RESUME GAP that is the job application equivalent of baldness & severe congenital facial deformity on a date.
As I observe wave after wave of upswinging economies propel fresh grads complacently into the middle class, I perceive broad acceptance of economic status/outcomes as proper verdict of "meritocracy" & tacit "social darwinism," our semi-official civil religion.
While I reject violence/crime, I don't judge others' anger; I regard any "social contract" as void or fiction. "Sauvez qui peut."
7
While it may appear the point of this comment was to vent bitterness, that's not actually it (I'll grant that could be *part* of the motivation, but a minor part).
It's this: certain experiences, maybe more widespread than some readers may perceive, may, at least in the affected individual's perception (& in my view quite actually), CANCEL widely assumed obligations to society (I'm not talking about legal obedience, though some, if they believe the laws unfair, take it that far, but a general loyalty to/solicitude for the more affluent population; I wouldn't actively harm, but neithe lift a finger/spend a penny to help, unless I specifically perceived some special virtue in the affected party).
In other words, I have accepted "everyman for himself" as our society's actual "morality." I'd not call 911 to save a Wall Street banker or his lawyer from drowning (or maybe just not without my $1 million fee in escrow first).
That said, from my experience I believe over-the-top kindness should be the default, only selectively applied. But if you're the sort (the vast majority) at peace with what the economy (& certain, often legally trained, brutes w/in it) can do to people, my bond of humanity w/ you is mostly (& certainly any "social contract" in toto) is cancelled.
When I look at the movements that attract the disenfranchised and the absolute evil they commit or endorse, of course I condemn. But that evil is in part bred by other quite 'respectably' licit evils (eg, greed).
1
Well-said. Too bad the Trumpistas don’t read the NY Times.
10
The trickle-down fraud continues. Throw a few pennies to the working masses while the billionaires take even a bigger slice of the pie than ever before. Keep in mind that the Koch brothers spent $20M of their own cash to send people door-to-door to market the Trump Tax Scam as being good for the working stiff. They and other billionaires just gave $800K to Paul Ryan for doing their bidding. Beyond that, the GOP will use low tax revenue as an excuse for gutting Medicare and Social Security. That is what the right wing coup of 2016 was all about. Corporate fascism has come to America and it is called the Republican Party.
17
Trump caters to the 1% . Do the Democrats have a different plan ?
(follow the money : from Wall Street to both parties, from Koch to both parties)
4
All this works because the Washington establishment thinks the American people are dumb enough to fall for this whole scam. And the public just keeps proving them right.
14
Well, if it looks like a duck, etc.
1
Beware the spin. Taxes are complicated, but predicting who will benefit from tax cuts is fairly clear. Respect to the NYT for warning us about the tax hype and also for its recent work on exposing the fake followers on social media.
4
We are the richest industrialized country on the planet GDP / capita by far.
We have poverty the other first world countries do not.
We have states with black infant mortality worse than Botswana.
Yet we pay almost twice as much per capita for healthcare as those other countries. And they have universal coverage.
We fund our school with local property taxes so the poorest neighborhoods have the least money to contribute.
13
The pitiful bonuses that some companies are now trotting out to their employees are nothing more than what they owed them years ago when their executives were snagging big bonuses and the workers zero. In a word: all that the Walmarts and their like are doing now is toss out a few peanuts. What else is new?
11
This simply cannot be considered news. This was transparently “the game” all along. And for the record the Democratic Party put up ZERO RESISTANCE to the rapacious GOP “tax bill”.
This is *exactly* how the republican lawmakers and the 0.1% envision their tax law "working".
Offer crumbs to the 99%. Tell them to be happy with this. Meanwhile, the 0.1% make off with the majority of the economic benefit.
Worsening wealth inequality and greed will eventually come home to roost.
6
It is important to note that Democrats have not been against the lowering of the corporate tax rate, so much as such a lowering not being accompanied by the closing of tax loopholes. The story here is that no serious loopholes have been closed. Wages, health care costs and the safety net are of no concern to the GOP. If the GOP plans to run on tax cuts for the wealthiest in order to survive the mid-terms, they are in for a rude awakening. Only on Fixed Newz will this abomination be sold as a good thing for the middle class. It isn't. While granting that a sizable portion of recent market gains are linked to the slashing of taxes on the wealthiest, it bears repeating that markets had been on the rise for much of the past 7 years thanks to the stewardship of President Obama and his team.
9
The reality is these "magnanimous" companies, and the many more that will not be handing out raises/bonuses (but should) could have been doing it all along. They are play-acting at this generosity, and as pointed out, also playing to POTUS need for applause, as well as the GOP that needs a little bump in their ratings.
Its like these companies found some couch-change and felt it was pragmatic to share some of it. But a $1K bonus, or a minor wage bump (that will not be added to next year, when the cuts really impact and employers reap greater benfits) will not do much to narrow wage disparities, or dig-out the heavily in debt middle/lower class workers. No way to catch-up for 30+ years of wage stagnation, incurring debt and savings depletion.
The workforce pool might be tight, but employers are not really caring all that much, as the whole notion of workforce respect has been undermined for many decades. All the attacks on Unions, and employee protections, etc, is not going away, and due to the influx of new technologies, and data mining, there will be a further undermining of the Working classes. Just wait till employers demand their workers wear a medical tracking device, and then figure ways to punish bad behaviors, etc. A "personal life" outside of work, will soon be invaded in unimagined ways.
Congratulating these companies for what they could have been doing all along is yet another of the more absurd moments of these odd-ball times.
4
Does anyone understand why Republicans are against Social Security?
I realize that the Republicans at the time of FDR didn't like it because it was new and a government program.
But we have seen it working for all these years so why are so many new generations of Republicans are against it?
Paul Ryan is a story unto himself. He received Social Security Survivor Benefits when his father died young. That helped Ryan get through college.
I think we need a psychologist to help understand and treat these people.
10
Well, to give a straight forward explanation, and giving the GOP individual members probably more credit than they are due....
Part of the Conservative Credo is a rejection of the concept of taxing people to pay for social programs. The “textbook” Conservative believes those needs would, in the absence of taxation, be voluntarily forthcoming from the generous souls among us, including hard line Conservatives. Taking my money is one thing, begging for it quite another.
By the way,I do not subscribe to this philosophy. I believe we can and should help our fellows.
1
The idea of progressive meritocratic capitalism is that with risk comes reward. In this case the reward has been given wothout any risk. So why invest in kegitimate long term ideas?? Hence the short term speculation and the usual plunge (1929/1989/2008) and subsequent government bailouts.
Another quick rule: few buyers, few sellers.
The tax cuts also assist those that are already farther ahead and cause a huge barrier to entry for new firms and innovations. The risk/reward thing
1
Why weren't tax cuts conditional?
2
Wait, wait. Will somebody please straighten something out for me?
At his Lago Mar resort's restaurant, when D. Trump was overheard to say to a group of people something to the effect, "I just made you a whole lot richer," wasn't he speaking to his employees, to the kitchen staff?
6
The rich elite will have a good story line to hoodwink the masses for another few years. However, after a while, the true facts will circulate and the social story of poverty for a disenfranchised shrunken middle class will turn to one of revolt.
Yes, the Obama tax cut for the middle class was larger than the GOP's and permanent.
Register to vote, elect a woman to Congress in 2018. Throw the GOP out.
6
The investors the Times seems to hate so much in many cases are the pension funds for teachers, public workers, and other groups that the Times seems to laud as the middle class.
So if investors benefit, then a large chunk of the dividends and higher returns go to protect underfunded (and overspent with pension- setting window games) pensions that are in a bit of trouble.
How addreseth the Resistance that we’re all in this economy together and we all benefit when it improves?
5
"we’re all in this economy together and we all benefit when it improves"
Balderdash!
1
Someone postest" Apple's bonuses to workers (about $300 million using a 123,000 employee number) were less than 1% of what it gave to shareholders last year in dividends and buybacks ($45 billion)
Says a lot about the some of NYT readership that they seem to find objectional that owners of a company who risked their money gain the upside vs. employees who often have no stake in the company and hences deserve only wages. Just bizzare and unbelievable, though not surprising. A lot of socialists among NYT readers. However many companies including Apple have employee stock ownership programs so that the employee can risk thier money and gain on the upside.
5
"owners of a company who risked their money"
And where does "their" money that they supposedly "risk" - "bet" is a better term - come from, Reader? Out of thin air? No. It comes from the virtually-unpaid labor of working-people.
2
I believe you are addressing the fundamental flaw in our current system of unfettered capitalism. Someday, I hope we will see a form of capitalism that values labor. I just don't believe things have to be so unfairly lopsided as to constitute class warfare against the poor and working classes. But who knows, maybe President Trump will get Mexico to pay for that additional 1.5 trillion in debt?
2
CEO's and top management make decisions to maximize their compensation, not necessarily maximize the value of the business enterprise. Such behavior skews decisions in perverse ways. Consider "managerial genius" of GE's Jack Welch. GE's present predicament of massive earnings shortfalls didn't just occur on the watch of Jeff Immelt and John Flannery. First groups to suffer when CEO's make massive mistakes? Supplier and employees - both lose business, margins erode, and layoffs prevail. Customers are inconvenienced.
Corporate income tax rates are not (and should not be) the driving force to make investment decisions. Decisions ought to be driven by REAL factors: technological shifts (fueled by R&D investment tax credits), whether there is a market (demand) for products, costs to produce including Supply Chain risk and cost of transportation of goods, employee skill sets to make quality products, and cost and lead-time for raw materials.
A trend on the labor component: automation, artificial intelligence, and replacement of people by robotics. CEO's will invest in all three over labor whenever possible. CEO compensation increases by profit growth hopefully; wages remain stagnant. When present stock euphoria deflates, then what? Massive deficits.
Republican recent tax legislation being a "jobs creator" was a specious argument. This isn't a viable long term strategy. Look for American financial security to be hollowed out. Then what? Decreased GDP.
5
So Republicans, instead of trying to find ways to rationalize a tax cut that is estimated to send only 35% of the benefit to the bottom 80% (worse if you include ACA subsidy cuts), why not instead advocate for better policy?
I'll give you some great recent examples of better policy:
1. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top 2% or so and cut spending on defense, balancing the budget from 1998-2001. Jobs and GDP grew faster than they did under Reagan.
2. Barack Obama raised taxes on the top 5% or so and cut spending on defense, cutting the budget deficit to its historical average as % GDP by 2014. Jobs and GDP grew faster than they did under Bush. By May 2014, we were back to pre-crisis bubble levels of employment. By 2016, real median household income (a great measure of middle class income, adjusted for inflation) was at a record level.
Both of these Presidents significantly raised the effective tax rate paid by upper income persons, improving income inequality relative to a baseline before their actions, and the economy boomed.
8
If the very wealthy people and corporations who have 90% of the money don't enough pay taxes to account for the windfall that American infrastructure has given them, that infrastructure will continue to erode ( roads, airports, public education, R&D, and most important, investment in human capital, the economy will stagnate. This boost of this cash giveaway will fade and the bill will come due again, but much, much larger.
5
Why is it a bad thing for the tax benefits to flow to investors? There are certainly wealthy investors but most investors in US public companies are the retirement investment funds of ordinary workers, no doubt including no doubt the authors of this editorial. Why shouldn't the profits of these companies be distributed to the people who have invested their saving in these companies rather than to the Federal government?
10
First, you have it upside down: most investors are relatively wealthy. The top 1% own as much as the bottom 90%.
Second, your question might be simplified to: Why should corporations pay taxes?
Answer: corporations place unique demands on the government. They create the need for market regulation, for environmental protection, and for international trade agreements. They also benefit from public investment in education, research, and infrastructure. Try running a large corporation without air traffic control. For just one day.
I would turn your question around: Why should ordinary individuals subsidize the work of corporations? Why should corporations benefit from public investments and privatize the profits made from them?
15
Another argument is why shouldn't companies pay taxes for the roads and schools used by the people who work and make the profits for those companies.
5
"most investors in US public companies are the retirement investment funds of ordinary workers"
"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." For instance, the number of the 98% invested in Apple - I'm one of them - is _far_ larger than the number of the 2% invested in Apple. But the 98% own a few shares apiece - fewer than 100 shares, in my case - whereas the 2% no doubt own tens of thousands of shares apiece, if not more.
The $252 billion of repatriated cash from Apple will be taxed, along with $100's of billions from other companies. In addition the $billions being handed out in bonuses will be taxed. The economic growth this investment in America will generate taxes. Trump's investment in the American economy will have returns dwarfing the original investment - that is how the tax cuts will be "paid' for.
5
There are zero economists predicting that the 1.5T deficit will be offset by tax income. There will be a net loss overall.
10
Show me an example where taxes have paid for themselves.
Look at Reagan, W Bush, and the Sam Brownback in Kansas.
W Bush gave us two "tax cuts for the job creators" and we got 3 million jobs. He also took a balanced budget, zero deficit, and gave Obama a whopping $1.4 Trillion deficit along with the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Obama put back the highest marginal tax rate and gave us the "jobs killing" Obama-care and we got 11.5 million jobs, almost 400% more than W Bush.
And after digging us out of the Great Recession, Obama after cut the deficit by almost 2/3 to $550 Billion. And 20 million people got healthcare.
As for 2017, 2.06 million jobs created sounds pretty good. But it is 20% less than the 2.24 million jobs in 2016, the last year of Obama and the worst job creation since 2010.
Seriously, take a little time to Internet search job creation by president, deficits by president, and Sam Brownback experiment.
4
I have zero confidence in "progressive" economists predictions. Krugmonics will be proven to be a failure and Krugman will need to find a new profession.
4
Disgusting. Big joke at the Richy Rich table tonight.
Lacking any sense of fairness and justice.
Land of the theif, home of the slave. The rest is smoke.
11
GOP is brilliant. Within two years they will have utterly transformed the federal government. They have gutted federal agencies so that they can't possibly accomplish their regulatory missions. A ticking time bomb will devastate the social safety net. they are appointing they most radical unqualified people to fill a backlog of justices. They are sabotaging the ACA. Their tax plan helps the top 5% at the expense of every American. The market has worked itself into a frenzy. When this party is over there will be one hell of a mess to clean up.
That's the brilliant part because there will be a democrats running the government.
The policies of Harding Coolidge, and Hoover were picked up by FDR. Reagan/Bush by Clinton, "W" by Obama. Its a pattern.
But the coming train wreck will nasty.
Always we have been fortunate that a great leader will rise in a time of crisis, Lincoln, FDR or T.R. Lets hope we can put the pieces together after the trump train wrecks this economy
18
Wait! These bosses are wealthy and white! They're not Reagan's welfare queens cheating the system, right? Aren't those all Hispanic or black? Romney's tax returns for 2011 didn't show any of his earnings stored in off-shore accounts - no? Powerful white men don't sexually abuse women who work under them, we can agree? They're white. They're pure as snow!
5
Give me a break. Working class Americans are 'deplorables' according to the Democratic Presidential candidate.
9
Aside from the fact that that's not what HRC said, are you really going to try to claim that (a) Trump supporters are the only working class people, and (b) only working class people support Trump?
3
Wrong, only those that are also white supremacist racists.
3
Working class people used to know that, as my father used to say "the Republican Party is only for the rich". They they drank the Reaganomics Kool-Aid and decided unions were no good, the government was no good, and that rich people were kind and generous and if given tax breaks, would shower jobs down on the rest of us.
The one deplorable thing is that many people still believe this Republican fairy tale, and doubled down on the Kool-Aid by voting for Trump. The bill will come due in a few years, and it will get ugly.
About 84% of US stock is owned by the richest 10%. Couple this with the fact ALOT of our stock is owned by foreigners. How is that trickle down supposed to work?
12
And if this latest overhaul of the tax code doesn't induce companies to raise employees wages to a decent level will Congress cut their taxes further? If one is living in a country, as a person or a corporation, isn't it fair for the government(s) and the citizens to expect the tax rates to be honored, that taxes will be paid? There is a reason governments tax people and corporations. It's meant to keep the services people and corporations require running smoothly. We've been seeing the consequences of tax relief for corporations for decades now. Roads in need of repair or upgrading to handle increased traffic, schools in disrepair, government programs that help 99% of the population cut to bare bones, and ever increasing levels of poverty as working people find the cost of living increasing more than their salaries.
When did it become unfashionable for businesses to be proud of their contributions to the economy and the government? When did it become more important for the CEO to be paid an outsize salary with overly generous perks than to pay employees a decent wage, to invest in employees, and to return the loyalty expected from employees to employees by not downsizing them when times are good? When did government and employees become the slaves of corporations and why is that allowed to continue? This has come about over the past 40 years and both parties are complicit. Let's hope they try to solve it and work for us instead of their wealthy corporate donors.
15
The Republican Party in Congress has chosen .No amount of money will
Help choke down the treatment of Obama during his 8 years,the refusal to
Repair the infrastructure in our country,the gerrymandering Of states to steal votes for their filthy tax law ,the killing of health care,and the theft of Obamas Supream court Nomination .When citizens united was “agreed to”the court lost
Our respect.It was always a political tentacle of the crooks in power.
Can we bring back to life our Democracy?not until we find an honest man or woman to lead,someone who knows the difference between enabling a man to
Grope a woman and being a man who would attack any woman to satisfy his
Need for power and desire to inslave another .
2
Hmm. Wages are rising due to labor shortages? Who knew? Just imagine how high they’ll go when we send illegals home and end unskilled immigration.
If companies repatriate $3 trillion or so in foreign profits, that’s hundreds of billions in unanticipated revenue, never mind the taxes imposed on the distributions to shareholders and employees? You’re sticking with that$1.5T scare number? (That number represents about ONE year of BHO’s obscene deficits; we tried it your way, and it failed: the economy was pathetic.)
The poor pay no income taxes; if they pay SOME, that’s a good thing, as everyone should have some skin in the game.
You don’t honestly believe that the Dems will let a middle class tax cut expire, do you?
And why can’t you check your envy at the door? Shareholders will benefit from their investments?!? Oh, the humanity! It’s unconscionable to permit those who actually earned the money to keep it!!
Consider a modest proposal: Progressive Taxation - impose big taxes on Progressives, so that they can experience the joy of putting their money where their principles are. Every registered Democrat simply pays what she would have owed without the GOP cuts - except for rich socialists in blue states: they pay under the new system and, if it increases their taxes, isn't that precisely what they keep demanding?
In the past 30 years, we've seen 3 major tax reforms: 1981; 1997; 2017. In the first two, the economy boomed. Why believe that this will be any different?
12
The federal budget is October 01 to September 30. So the first year of a president is the last year's budget of the outgoing president.
W Bush got a balanced budget, zero deficit, from Clinton and gave Obama a whopping $1.4 Trillion deficit. And under W Bush, the economy produced 3 million jobs and the Great Recession.
Obama cut the deficit by almost 2/3 to $550 Billion. We got through the Great Recession and the economy created 11.5 million jobs, almost 400% more than W Bush.
And 20 million people got healthcare.
Reagan cut taxes and we got 16 million jobs. We also got a huge increase in the deficit and the debt tripled. It is the reason people put the debt clock in Manhattan.
Clinton raised taxes and we got 23 million jobs, almost 50% more than Reagan. And Clinton balanced the budget.
Take a little time to search job creation by president/year and deficits by president/year.
1
No surprise there.
1
A trillion dollars to the filthy rich, $1000 to the peons.
7
Gosh, couldn't have seen this coming. A tax over haul benefits the rich and powerful. Sure a few crumbs fall off the table for the peons to celebrate their good fortune with, but that doesn't change the basic numbers. 20% of big u.s. corporations already pay no federal taxes. Hard to cut that rate, unless you're like many of them, (like GE), who are given credits so that if they ever have to pay taxes, well, they still won't. The truth is, both the repubs and the Dems are in the pockets of the powerful. Reagan, Clinton ( at least his tax plan brought some money into the treasury), bush 2, BHO (bailed out the fat cats after they ruined the economy and gave big pharma the ACA), congress, everybody in Washington knows where the money to get reelected comes from and it isn't the tiny number of union people left or the "freelancers". It's the top. The difference now is that they don't even bother to hide it any more, they complain theyre the aggrevied party and are "owed" by the rest of us. And for 40 years they've been making it stick. Unless we elect an authentic reformer or socialist or whatever you want to call them, it's not changing.
6
This tax law does exactly what the RepubliCONs have been complaining about regarding the undocumented immigrants... it rewards questionable/illegal activity. It rewards companies like Apple for keeping their profits offshore by giving them a huge tax break. Sure sounds like AMNESTY to me.
4
Wow, the Times will say ANYTHING to talk against the tax cut. Do you even realize utilities are cutting their rates as a result of the tax cut? I suggest the editors pay the old rate as part of their “resistance”. That will enable them to pay themselves on the back for being so much smarter than everyone else. Do they realize THEY are the one percent?
7
The owners of the New York Times are members of the 1 percent, but I am pretty sure the editors are middle class. You seem to have a skewed image of salary structure. Perhaps you should also have a closer look at what our utilities and corporations do, and why they do it.
3
The utility companies in Connecticut just raised the electric rates again. I would love to pay the old rate, the one before we had "deregulation of electric rates" and before middlemen were inserted between the electric generation and the final delivery to customers.
So for that great tax cut the companies got, they are making customers pay more? How is that good?
"And it is a way to deflect attention from the insidious aspects of the tax law: It will add about $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, and many poor and middle-class families will pay more taxes over time."
For years New York Times columnists told us to ignore the national debt. Barack Obama added $8 trillion to that national debt in his 8 years and was severely criticized by the New York Times premier columnist, Paul Krugman, who argued this was NOT ENOUGH deficit spending. So it looks a little suspicious that the Gray Lady is now suddenly a deficit hawk, moaning about an $1.5 trillion of debt.
Ah, the consistency of The Resistance.
5
Krugman Paul morphed from a raging Keynesian to a raging libertarian in a few days in November of 2016. The shape change was stunning. As a neo-Ayn Rand he predicted that global financial markets would collapse and never recover. Folks at the Times seem to have trouble with simple economic concepts. For example, The Editors claim that the tax law will add $1.5 Trillion to the "deficit" in ten years. Savvy economic editors would have caught that mistake in a heartbeat. But, not The Times Editors.
Yet another person that doesn't seem to understand that the debt rose primarily on the back of interest payments for the two wars that Bush conducted outside of the budget, coupled with seeing the financial relief through that was proposed by Bush at the end of his term.
1
And you forgot that Republicans are OK with federal deficits as long as they are the ones who run up the bill on things they want. Who said "Deficits don't matter?" Oh yes, that raging Keynesian of the Reagan administration, Dick Cheney.
Ah, the hypocrisy of The Right Wing.
What I said to my wife the morning after the Don won, and while reading and chortling over Krugman’s silly little hissy fit, verbatim: “If you think they hate him now, just wait until his policies start working.”
If Crooked Hillary had won, and all that has transpired this year had come to pass, the MSM would be gushing with praise for her leadership in the defeat of the Islamic State, the booming economy, the skyrocketing stock market, the full employment. Also, #metoo would never have happened. Unless it referred to everyone’s excitement over their 401K performance.
6
Businesses are required to run their company in manner that benefits shareholders. Not workers or the public. It’s just the legal setup of corporations. They will only create jobs or pay more if it supports that mandate and NOT because they happen to have some extra cash. check out what happened in Kansas #kansascutsfailed
4
dave, that's a very narrow and recent interpretation of what a business is required to do. Beig beholden ONLY to the stockholders is recent meme. There was a time,in the not too distant past where businesses, larger employers did concern themselves with the employees, their community,etc. It was a pragmatic choice that helped with productivity, but it was a wise choice in that it was a leg of the great American Boon post-WW2.
Plus,not all businesses that are benefiting from these tax breaks will have stockholders.
4
Having a fiduciary obligation to shareholders does NOT mean doing anything and everything to maximize short term profits.
Even if all of the cash repatriated was distributed to shareholders, the economy will be strengthened. Shareholders don’t take dividends and put them in a coffe can under the bed. The money is reinvested, spent on consumer products or otherwise plowed back into the economy. Such moves either provide additional capital for companies to expand or invest in new products or facilities which provide jobs and competition for labor thus driving up compensation for employees
The Times seems totally unwilling to accept basic tenets of capitalism or providing economic freedom to companies and individuals to use THEIR money without handouts or greater government control. My comment will de derided as supply-side economics but the simple fact remains is freeing up cash at the corporate level will constructively put result in greater consumption of goods and services by everybody because of increased compensation
4
A minor technical detail: the article's about whether or not these tax cuts and the gazillions corporations, investment banks and the very wealthiest are being handed will increase workers' salaries or not.
It's not about the general economy, or your Gilded Age def of, "prosperity."
1
You are failing to look at the percentages, or even recognize that much of that cash going to shareholders ends up not being spent, just sat upon to bolster their wealth. The Times accepts the basic tenets of regulated capitalism, but in now way should it or anyone that cares about our country go to the table for unregulated capitalism; we should have learned that lesson 130 years ago.
1
With the advent of control of the government by the Republicans, wages have stagnated while CEO pay has increased by leaps and bounds. In the 1970s, when workers relied on unions, the CEOs made 70 times the average workers' pay. Now, without unions, the ratio has increased to 350 times the average workers' pay.
Corporations in the 1970s got together to protect their financial interest and abandoned the wage earners' interests. The so-called job creators became job destroyers, when for their financial benefit, they outsourced the workers' jobs, solely to increase their profitability.
Then, the same corporations were able to sell products manufactured overseas back to consumers in the US for a much greater profit. Furthermore, they kept their unlawful profits in overseas tax havens, letting that wealth accumulate while not paying US taxes.
Corporations are represented by the US Chamber of Commerce, which pays enormous sums to lobbyists, in order to obfuscate the truth, that is that they made plans to decrease the workers' share of profits, not only to increase their profitability, but to bring on another profiteer - the Stock Market - which bets on companies that make profits by cutting labor.
In short, US corporations said, "let labor eat cake."
Vote Republicans out of government and you can take a major step forward in killing corporate greed.
6
The "real" American thought process: "I'll gladly take that dime you're offering me today in exchange for you taking my dollar next week, and I'll vote for you in gratitude for your brilliant bait and switch!" Honestly, I think we're doomed because of our national stupidity.
8
Ugh, right? Look at liberal enclave California! It has the highest rate of inequality in America and a sky-high poverty rate. Vote Democrat!
2
Was former California Governor Reagan a Democrat? Was former California Governor Schwarzenegger a Democrat?
I think the switch to Democrats in California was recent, and maybe was caused by people being sick and tired of the inequality the previous Republican government fostered.
The Democrats did not create the inequality or the poverty rate. Those had been there for years, since Proposition 13, when Republicans defunded the state with property tax reductions for the wealthy. And inequality soared as the people struggled to pay exorbitant bills when electric rates skyrocketed because of the deregulation (and crooked Enron) under Republican governor Pete Wilson.
So don't talk about Democrats unless you also want to review what Republican administrations have done to California.
The Republicans, and the Democrats to an extent, are overfeeding their already obese house pets, BUT there will be no terminal trip to the veterinarian because, if the fat cats get sick, Congress will fix them up good as new, better than new! America's beloved pets sit at the dinner table and eat first, then their leftover scraps are thrown in the corner for labor to gnaw on the bones.
3
I did NOT read past the headline.
But Trump has said in the past: "Sarbanes-Oxley [ Congress legislation post-Enron] prevented me and my friends from making money".
...so we don't need to read the entire article.
5
Walmart also closed out their Sam's Club stores and 100,000 employees are being laid off. The closings were done without a lot of notice either.
Thank you for this article which unfortunately tells me what I already guessed at. Big money to top executives who already have obscene, bloated salaries, and some money to shareholders. Very little to their actual workforce as far as wage increases, and benefits, and little to none of their savings back into the economy itself, or the General Fund, as I name it.
6
Fantasy: “Recent announcements by Apple, Walmart, AT&T, Starbucks and other businesses that they are giving workers raises, repatriating foreign profits and investing in the United States because of the tax bill Congress passed last year are clearly music to the ears of President Trump and Republican lawmakers” Reality: Just bait to entice uninformed voters. Trump and Republicans only concern themselves with items that garner votes. So many Republican supporters have had their rationale for loyalty tested by reality that it boggles the mind how they persist. Evangelicals will embrace this propaganda imagining that Trump is doing what he can for “the least” while his whole agenda ignores the majority of the working class.
In the meantime, what is the long term result of concentrating wealth even more? Piketty has analysis that points to Catastrophe. Certainly, it’s an easy means of ending democracy or any narrative remaining for democracy. When the SCOTUS handed speech over to monied interests, and made Corporations super citizens that have religious rights which enable them establish religion as a basis of civic behavior and scuttles the voting rights of millions we are at the mercy of corporations and oligarchs.
Today we can read a narrative that advocates equal time for a dysfunctional racist to have a place at the table on this very Op-ed page. Giving voice to those whose intent is to silence other voices is probably the most serious threat to our democratic republic.
1
Time will tell how this plays out. One thing that is misleading in your piece is that Apple and other companies received a tax cut on their foreign profits. That is true if they brought the money back. They were not going to bring this money home. 38 billion is more than zero, which is the tax revenue the government would have received if the money stayed overseas under the old rules.
4
Again, I will point out that none of these bonuses or raises are going to the 45 million people who are self-employed, freelancers, independent contractors, and other so-called gig workers participating in the "new" economy. These people already pay double payroll taxes and have no benefits whatsoever. And freelancing or contract work comprises the fastest-growing sector of workers in the country, many of them older workers laid off from corporate jobs and unable to retire.
If the Republicans had really wanted to do something for the middle and lower classes, they could have taken that 1.5 trillion and funded universal healthcare. That would have been a massive relief to EVERYONE, including businesses that are currently forced to pay for employee health insurance, employees who want to change jobs but can't because they will lose their insurance, and the self-employed, who are currently at the mercy of the price-gouging private health insurance market.
7
As the baron drops a dollar to the poor, "don't say it never trickled!"
2
The tax bill extended the one million dollar limitation on deductions for execution compensation for publicly traded corporations. See 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Previously, that limitation excluded incentive compensation, such as stock (query whether that idea ever accomplished anything positive and more likely encouraged other problems, such as providing management incentives to manipulate revenue and thus stock prices), but the bill extended it. So is the thesis of the Editorial Board still palpable? I doubt it, unless boards want to go to battle with shareholders over "expensive" executive compensation (i.e., not tax deductible), but why is that not a deal between shareholders and management. Its there property, right? And if you follow the links on this article, they don't really support the contention of the article. Here's a thought question. If you had the choice between Apple repatriating a net $214 billion dollars or them repatriating nothing, which would you choose? Companies that parked assets over seas were acting in full compliance with distorted incentives of a tax code designed predominately for a post WWII economy in which the US had very little world wide competition. The 2004 law did not fix the problem by lowering rates and eliminating the incentive for leaving assets overseas. Very similar to Daca: do you want a patch (so the left can continue to exploit an open border) or do you want a fix.
1
that was the point! look who supported the scheme and how they argued for it. 'trickle-down' is a myth
2
I've noticed that two big groups and one small one cheer for these tax cuts:
1. Guys who run corporations and big financial firms of one sort or another. This makes sense, as they're makng out like bandits.
2. Guys who claim to have a bunch of money in stocks. Okay, this makes sense too--even if I wonder if they're clever enough (they often chortle about their cleverness) to know when to bail.
3. Regular folks. And here's the curious thing: the RFs never seem to mention that THEIR wages went up significantly, that THEY got a big promotion, that THEY got a great new job, that THEY didn't get laid off. There's not even a "And now my home town has five new businesses and a coffee shop, because..."
It's always somebody else, someplace else.
Instead, they yell about comm'nism. They recite platitudes about how Life Ain't Fair. They chant what they heard Hannity chant about how the wealthy EARNED their money, by gum, and ain't no dern gub'mint oughta be a-takin' it. They scream about how The Country Standing tall, and you hysterical liberals just can't stand that and I love seeing you cry.
You been suckered, boys. Wait'll you see what happens to your health care, if you have any, and the Medicaid money that's keeping your gran in that nice nursing home.
You're losing loaves, and accepting crumbs.
6
So far we've see a handful of companies give $1000 bonuses mainly to hourly workers. However, if the believers in trickle down economics think the masses will be helped, they are wrong. I don't know anyone in Silicon Valley who has been offered more pay or a bonus. Sure a $1000 or $2000 won't make a big difference for people making $100-250K, but if companies are bringing back hundreds of millions of dollars, they might want to start by helping employees who often work 15-18 hours a day during launches. Offer every employee more RSUs or raise everyone's salary another 5%. That makes a difference and helps foster a sense of community in an org.
The masses literally got the $1000 bonuses. What are you saying?
70 or 80 percent of the investors that are so roundly derided by the media are pension funds, 401k's, endowments and such. What's so wrong with giving retirees and future retirees a shot at life. I'm sure whoever writes the articles will benefit in the future although they are loath to admit it.
3
The retirees may be OK, if we don't have another huge WallStreet/deregulation/derivatives recession like 2008. But the few protections that were put in place to try to prevent it are currently being stripped out by the Trump administration in another deregulation round.
The working people who have 401K's now will only benefit if they continue to have jobs with 401k's. If corporations take their tax savings and use it for buybacks, CEO compensation, or automation, instead of jobs and wages, the workers will be no better off than they are now, and may be in a worse situation.
JP Morgan gave 10% of their 250,000 employees a pay raise. Really? Where are the other billions in tax savings go? How will that help an economy that is 2/3rds consumer driven?
3
We have been here before, except with the reality that corporate earnings and company values are some of the highest in human history and it is still not enough for these folks.
One critical point that I do believe is being over looked is the clear financial incentives this tax bill will give companies, specifically multinational ones like Apple and Amazon, to embrace AI and automation even more. The influx of billions of dollars into their coffers will only expedite the displacement of workers, especially higher earning white collar workers.
Many experts predict 800 millions jobs will be lost by 2030 initially worldwide to AI and automation.
Where is the Administration's plan for that economic tsunami?
4
If the Rs wanted to guarantee everyone gets a pay increase they should increase the minimum wage to 15$ per hour. The world wide economic surge was in place since last year and it had nothing to do with Trump. In fact at Davos there was a united front against Trump's economic nationalism. As the NYTs recently reported the solar panel issue where Trump doesn't like cheap foreign solar panels so he'll penalize the whole sector to get companies to buy expensive ones. Of course he doesn't like green energy which is a sector that is growing quite well. The fat cats who held back in investing in this country hiding their assets overseas or banks that played small interest rate swings with huge sums of money given them by the fed are now ready to throw a few bucks to their workers for PR. And are celebrating the zillions they seem about to pocket with this unseemly tax cut pay out.
3
Spoiler Alert: Republicans don't want everyone to get a raise. Quite the opposite, in fact.
2
It's good to have a job. It's better to have a job that pays enough to buy a home, a new car, health insurance and medical and dental care, take a vacation, save for retirement, and send the kids to college. It's also good to not get laid off when the company decides to move operations to a low-wage country to increase its profits. It's those last two items that the Republicans leave to chance.
10
What bothered me about the tax plan was the corporate tax cut. This is from the Treasury Department, "Based on data from federal corporate income tax returns for 2007 through 2011, Table 1 shows that
the U.S. ATR on income earned by profitable corporations with over $10 million in assets was
22 percent (when averaged over all firms in all years)...".
So, if companies were actually paying 35% I would have no problem cutting their rate, but they aren't paying anywhere near that, so why cut the rate? We simply reduce our revenue further which, as any business owner knows, is the wrong way to go if you are in deficit.
9
Both political parties are in the pockets of big business, ironically, the Democratic candidate in 2016 was beholden to Wall Street probably even more than the GOP candidate.
If the Democrats what to differentiate themselves from the Republicans in 2020, they should focus on the middle class American and not illegal residents, who cannot (legally) vote anyway. This is why they lost the election in 2016. They may win back the Trump democrats if they focus on bread and butter issues that impact the middle class Americans, who are constantly being squeezed to death and are directly impacted by both illegal and legal immigration, which suppresses wages for blue-collar and yes, even white collar jobs, because of the simple law of supply and demand. (Americans compete with illegals for blue collar jobs and compete with legal H1B visa holding immigrants for blue collar jobs.)
In other words, the Democrats need a Bernie Sanders and not another Hillary as their candidate in 2020.
Also, last time I checked, Democrats are in power in the overwhelming majority of American cities, yet, cities are falling over themselves to give the best financial windfall, i.e., corporate welfare to Amazon, to entice Amazon to open their new and secondary headquarters in their city. It is hypocritical to complain about the Trump tax cut and then throw money at Amazon in this absurd and grotesque way.
10
The effects of this tax bill will be long term, and have deep consequences for the American middle class and poor. Within the decade, taxes for us will return to their current level. Corporate taxes and estate taxes will continue at the low levels set by Congress in December.
To pay for the trillion and a half dollars in tax cuts, Congress and the administration will have to make massive cuts in a variety of services currently available to the middle class and poor. Medicare is at the top of their list along with our basic social safety net; food stamps, aide to the indigent, all welfare programs. Social security will fall under the ax next. Republicans have hated that program since its inception, and massive new deficits will produce a new tipping point for them to argue. Maybe we can dissolve the program entirely, or perhaps raise the retirement age to 75.
Our taxes, those of the working poor, will continue to rise to help pay off the debt these cuts create. Think of this tax cut as a 50 year mortgage against the future of our county's taxpaying public; your kids and kid's kids. The upside, of course, is that the rich will get richer.
7
This is comforting news, I thought things were going to change under the new administration and the newfound corporate generosity. I was afraid my assumptions about corporate economic behavior of the past 40 years were going to be upended. Tonight I sleep knowing same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
5
This is all about defunding the government even more, so that Republicans can complain endlessly about how inefficient it is.
Of course, any institution operating with a tin can, a piece of string, and one employee is not going to be very efficient, and this is exactly the state that Republicans want to see our government entities in.
They want a failed government so that there will be literally no one to reign in their robbery of the US Treasury; no one to regulate their polluting companies; no one to institute and enforce labor laws, consumer protections, and food safety; no public hospitals to care for the poor; no public schools for middle-class and poor children; and no Medicare or Social Security for anyone.
All they want is a military they can control that will protect their corporations operating around the world.
You think this sounds extreme? Look at the actual results of Republican legislative activity across the country and ask yourself if anything in your life -- from roads to commuting to schooling to healthcare to civil rights and labor laws -- has improved after enduring a forty-year period of Republican attacks upon the American government.
9
the GOP: as written by Dickens. off to the workhouse with you, liberal Democrats, and let the hidden hand of the market steer our course.
more like the black hand, if we're being honest.
The smart move would have been to drop corporate tax from 35 to 20 but to strictly enforce it and eliminate all loopholes. That way the corporations couldn't complain that they were being made to pay "onerous" tax (I mean, sure leave the US economy and see how that works out for you...anyway) but we would actually be increasing revenue from the average 17% that most major corporations had managed to get their 35% down to with creative accounting.
But again, as I say, that would have been the smart move.
5
The tax rate was dropped to the lowest possible level by the GOP. There is too much silly money around to do any good - there is trouble ahead. The next Democratic president and congress will be forced to raise taxes as always happens after the Republicans crash the economy. However this new law will impede the needed tax increases; but, more importantly, it will allow republicans to paint the democrats as tax and spend liberals. And of course the Republican base only listens to Fox News so they are not going to know what is going on.
It is such a shame that rather than giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy we had invested that money in fixing our health care system for middle and lower income people, for supporting education, and for infrastructure. Investing in the future of all citizens would have been good for corporations and would have set an optimistic future-looking tune for everyone. America is open for business. Instead? So sad. More wasted years.
5
This was described as a Tax Reform, something that is transforming the distribution of wealth in ways that seem to hardly have been seriously explored. Rather than having projections of various international and domestic contingencies this was thrown together based on promises made at campaign rallies, the ones with "string her up" and "I'll pay your legal fees if you beat up a protester."
Well, we are already feeling the effects. Real estate is booming, meaning an exchange between two classes of plutocrats, those with established wealth and builder-investers. The losers are those who had been able to afford to live in the now gentrified areas, the top level finding lesser housing while the marginal ones are now on the streets.
Any effect paradoxically, is a reaction from the socialist branch of the Democratic party, with fantastical proposals for universal healthcare and higher education. Sanders 100 page bill for Medicare for all, would require confiscation of medical establishments and replacing those specialists who will have to live on a civil service salary. And every announced Presidential candidate has endorsed this soviet style legislation.
Obama may have liked these results also, but he was realistic to know that the ACA was need to slowly change our established private medical establishment.
Sadly, it's looking like the only resistance to Trump's virtual plutocratic revolution is its antithesis, with the stakes higher for each round.
2
Oh come on! The economy is picking up. For the first time in forever, we are seeing signs that major companies are investing in the US and adding jobs and raising wages. I actually see signs of hope.
4
Excellent article! Some thoughts and statistics to put the corporate response in context:
1. Apple's bonuses to workers (about $300 million using a 123,000 employee number) were less than 1% of what it gave to shareholders last year in dividends and buybacks ($45 billion).
2. Willis Towers Watson surveyed over 300 companies with more than 1,000 workers; fully 80% of them had no plans to raise wages.
3. The bottom 80% of households have 8% of the stock market wealth, so stock market gains, buybacks and dividends do little for them.
4. Corporate profits were already at record levels before Trump's loss of the popular vote. They could have been paying far more in wages instead of stock buybacks before if they wanted to do so.
5. The tax cuts will improve profits every year going forward, yet many of the 20% of companies doing something with employee compensation are paying one-time bonuses.
If people weren't sure Republicans were the Party of the 1% already, they know now. And to prevent false equivalence, one of America's most dangerous maladies, Obama raised taxes on the top 5% and used that money to fund healthcare expansion for 20 million people, helping improve inequality relative to the prior law baseline.
6
That $1.5 trillion, so far, is being raised with short-term lending by the government. The treasury should be borrowing with 30-year paper, instead it's issuing six-month notes. This guarantees that if interest rates go up, debt service payments will go up, and the sky's the limit. Very dumb way to implement some very dumb tax cuts (for the long run).
2
The US government is the sole source of US dollars in the world and the interest rate is always what the US Fed wants it to be. Your concerns are unwarranted.
What about lowering prices for goods? The right wing trope is that "corporations do not pay taxes, they collect taxes" and pass the cost on to the consumer. So, if they are "collecting" less in taxes, they should be lowering their prices. Yet not one single company has said they are lowering prices. Every single one says they are simply passing the windfall on to their execs or investors Guess that puts the lie to the right wing economic delusions.
7
Yes! Yes! Yes! The benefits to citizens would be enormously greater if rather than dispensing a $1000 bonus one-time to employees, prices for goods and services, especially healthcare, would be dropped for consumers. Utilities too.
1
The republican tax bill is the ultimate shell game, dealer always wins.
7
Why did the top 1% get a new tax cut? We learned from the Panama and Paradise Papers just how many legal means they have to avoid paying taxes. How does it benefit regular Americans that they now can pay even less than they already were?
5
Thank you, NY Times, for reminding us that when corporations improve their earnings by 10% the execs get 90% of the benefits.
5
Anyone who has worked in a large business knows that tax cuts never, ever, result in pay raises across the board. To do so ruins their competitive cost structure. It does represent an opportunity to buy back stock, or pay dividends. And that is usually the choice recommended by management to the board. Bonuses depend upon performance of the company, not one time infusions of cash from the latest tax legislation. Capital investment is driven by expected return on additional investment, not the sudden availability of cash. The pay raise argument has been a con job, unless you believe in “trickle down” economics.
5
The new tax code by Trump and the GOP Congress is specifically designed to have a positive first impact for 2 years - until the 2018 midterm elections. Backroom discussions between the Oval Office and our billionaire/CEO's were done to make sure corporations would pull these wonderful stunts such as $1000 Christmas bonuses in 2017 to make it SEEM that the tax cuts would flow, and Continue to Flow, down to the masses of ordinary workers.
Most voters have not studied the fine print and do not realize that their tax cut will expire or increase after voting whereas the corporate masters will retain theirs well beyond November 2018.
November 2018 will be an example of the GOP fake news that all boats are lifted when the boss takes more. The voters will not notice the bait and switch.
They are used to and adore Trump's lies.
6
I watch a fair amount of business news. When Walmart announced their pay raise of $11/hr I had to laugh. This puts those workers at about $22000 a year which is about the poverty level. Not exactly a thing to brag about. The upper echelon of the same company probably earn that in a month and the owners of Walmart probably earn that in an hour or less. To claim that the new tax laws are going to benefit the poor working class is absurd. While the workers are being doled out pennies, the Waltons are stuffing their pockets with millions of extra dollars. The gap just keeps getting wider.
105
So true. I believe that any company that is paying wages so low their employees are still dependent on government to subsidize their income with food stamps, housing assistance, and medical insurance, should not be receiving a tax cut, but rather a tax increase. Because it is the taxpayers like us who are subsidizing their ability to pay their employees poverty wages.
8
$22,000.00 a year gross IF they work full time for $11.00 an hour. I believe that Walmart limits most of its employees to part time employment. So, let's see, 30 hours a week (and that's being generous) at $11.00 an hour works out to be $17,160.00 a year gross income. Try supporting yourself on that while scrambling to arrange childcare and personal appointments around a work schedule that changes constantly and with little or no notice.
6
Walt, the thing is if you have been making $9 an hour and you go to $11 it seems like you hit the lottery. Walmart knows this... corporate Scrooge’s can then promote the idea hat a Trump economy is lifting people when in fact an Obama economy would have done this and more if the GOP/ corporate boys and girls hadn’t obstructed every step of the way, The Republicans solidified at will employment, enacted right-to-work laws on the state level and trashed unionists in every way possible, to boot. Now the bums are trying to say that a 20% raise for subsistence level workers compares with a zillion % raise for investors and the corporate top dog’s, and for that business grifter at the highest level, Trump. The game is rigged; E. Warren is right, although she’s too old and too controversial to be elected President.
Find me a younger version of E. Warren and I’ll vote for she or he in a New York (well, Hoosier) moment. I’m so tired of Trump; I knew that the only thing on his agenda was taking care of billionaires. And to my UAW brothers and sisters who crossed the line and voted for Trump: you really, really sold your souls.
6
Two recent comments get to the point:
“As an owner of a corporation, the tax law LOWERED my incentive to pay wages. With corporate taxes at 39.6%, if I paid a dollar in wages it only cost $0.60 in lost profit because I can deduct the cost. Now with the 21% rate, it costs me a full $0.79 in lost profit. Wages are paid with pretax dollars, and it just got more expensive to pay them!”
“88% of stock is owned by the top 20%, about 50% is owned by the 1% and the bottom 40% owns 6%”
One time small bonuses will be the preferred route of corporations, while the vast bulk of tax reductions will be used for corp debt reduction, share buybacks, and dividends. Meanwhile, R&D for automation, mechanization, and other “human reduction” processes speeds ahead. Robots and algorithms don’t need salaries, benefits, and sick time.
When the “lower middle class” starts to see real increases in their overall economic health, including affordable QUALITY health insurance and higher education, etc., that is when the economy will be growing in a meaningful way.
6
The reduction in the corporate tax rate was the right move however it should have been revenue neutral by ensuring that all companies including Apple, GE etc pay the full 21 percent. They all enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure , military etc and they should pay their fair share.
Anyone who believes that corporations will automatically give on average an $4000 to each employee as stated by Trump in Davos is to say the least naive.
This if done will increase the cost of production and encourage Corporations in investing in automation and out sourcing.
In the short term the corporate bonanza will be spent on improving earnings per share, buy back of shares , higher dividends etc.
Meanwhile our infrastructure, education standards, health care costs and quality are un compeititive , income inequality will grow. Our debt will grow.
We must tackle the real problems in our country and this tax bill fails on all accounts
7
Gee golly these investors sure sound like shady characters, wanting their returns.
Oh wait I’m invested for my retirement, guess I am evil now as well. Drat.
6
@CS: Well, good luck depending upon the stock market to fund your retirement. I have a friend who lost $45,000 from her IRA during the 2008 crash, and she still hasn't recovered it. And she has ten more years of stock market volatility to go before she can even think about retiring. Which she won't be able to do, because she has no other sources of income.
My IRA has around $12,000 total in it, because trying to scrape up the cash to pay into it has become next to impossible, with health insurance, rent, and supporting a kid in college taking up nearly the entirety of my income. It also lost nearly all of the value it had accrued in 2008, so all of the gains I am seeing now are still making up for what was lost in 2008.
Bring back the days of defined pensions and stable Social Security, affordable rent, higher education, and health insurance, and let speculators enjoy the volatility of the stock market all they want.
4
The working poor, and the lower middle class, do not have enough disposable income to "invest for retirement"; they work long hours to buy food and pay rent. Those who have more money than they need for basic necessities, can invest. You are not evil; you are just more fortunate than those who cannot even see a path to retirement.
2
It has always been a fantasy that Corporations will higher employees that are not needed or pay them more than the going rate. The idea is that they get more product for fewer man hours, not more. They don't open plants or make product that can't generate a profit because of Social Engineering goals of the government. The worker that gets a measly bonus today, might be laid off tomorrow in favor of the lowest priced worker of all, the robot. That's the goal, plain and simple, the ultimate increase in productivity. The owners of the company, the shareholders, get their just reward in rising dividends and share prices. The Republicans always pass on this fiction, while fomenting anti-labor policies, subsidizing businesses with only ephemeral promises of a return in that investment to the taxpayers which may never come. This time will be no different.
54
We will need to tax machines in order to secure a baic income for under employed people.
3
I should be seeing a couple thousand less in taxes this year. Now, I like more money in my paycheck just as much as the next person, but what goes down must come back up at some point. We’re either going to have to cut programs like Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare (Republican’s plan) or raise taxes higher than they were before this cut (Democrats plan) to repay the lost revenue. Either way, we regular folks will lose out. Either we pay more in taxes or we get no social security and no subsidized healthcare and thus pay more on retirement and health costs. Regardless of who holds power, we’ll be stuck holding the bag. Wouldn’t it have been better to keep the ‘reform’ in tax reform, rather than turning it into tax cuts and racking up a giant pile of debt that’ll saddle everyone in the country with a higher bills (of one sort or the other) for decades after this party is all through in 2025?
6
This should not be a surprise to anyone. When a corporation makes a profit it goes primarily to shareholders and executive management. It makes no difference where those profits come from: efficiencies, automation, outsourcing, off shoring, subsidies, higher prices through protectionism, or tax cuts. Jobs and wages are a cost. They lower profits. Corporations are not in business to create jobs, to pay higher wages or to provide more benefits, again these are all costs.
The miracle of this "middleclass tax cut" - the benefits of which go overwhelmingly to corporations and the wealthiest of the wealthy - is that anyone in the middle class believes this to be true.
3
I’m not sure why there is any confusion over why these tax cuts were done or what the effect will be. The Republicans were fairly candid about why they did it: to pay back their donors. The effect will be that corporations (after making a few PR gestures that will cost them peanuts)will use the windfall to buy back stock taking it off the market and driving up the price. The resulting profit will then be funneled into executive stock compensation and into shareholder profit. The net benefit will remain in the top percentage of the population. A temporary tax cut for the middle class will have a negligible long-term effect on their welfare. The rich will get richer and the rest….well, good luck.
5
I think the tax cuts are too deep and do benefit the haves, for the most part. However, I'm wondering if foreign companies will open up new plants in the USA and put provide jobs for the blue collar workers that overwhelmingly support Trump and have been ignored by us Democrats. We're going to have to live with this law for at least three years, after which hopefully a Democratic Congress and President can scale it back.
Several Points. I run a small business and my 7 employees have all seen their after tax income increase as a direct result of the tax plan. They have the tax bill to thank.
It simply does not make sense for corporations to attribute new investment, bonuses, and increased wages to the tax plan for political purposes as many of the CEO's of these corporations have expressed extreme disapproval of Trump.
Also, "and many poor and middle-class families will pay more taxes over time" is a false statement as all income brackets will receive a cut in their marginal rates. A clarification that after 2025, assuming provisions of the bill aren't extended---which the GOP desires--- rates will increase is more accurate.
1
"...my employees have all seen their after tax income increase..."....my guess maybe 50 cents an hour, maybe a little more?...compare that to the top 5-10% with increases in the tens of thousands (much more for the top most)...
2
A minor technical detail: payroll taxes don't get changed until next month.
1
One thing we know for sure is that if Obama or HRC passed the same tax reform as Trump you would be celebrating the worker bonuses and repatriation of dollars. Sour grapes?
20
I don't know about that, but I do remember how business people cheered for Bush tax cut, then same people were begging the Government to bail them out. Why don't we hear praises of the Government from these people?
5
President Obama did try to reduce the Corporate tax rate to 28 percent but he was blocked by a Republican congress, if the corporate tax rate reduction is the panacea for our economy then we could have had greater growth over the last 5 years but the Republicans obstructed our growth.
By the way by President Obama in the stimulus package and by making the Bush tax cuts permanent reduced taxes by a greater amount than the latest tax reduction
7
Nope.
The Republican “Party” is a business and a highly successful business at that. They are there to make money for themselves and their “shareholders”
“Trickle down” has been going on for nearly 40 years, and the only ones getting richer are the 1%.
It’s a great business plan based on greed, but it’s not going to help anyone else or the country.
3
If the new lower tax rates are so bad I guess the NYT and all the others against the lower rates, corporate and personal, plan to pay their taxes using the older higher rates? Didn't think so.
18
Why would they do it? The higher taxes work only when they imposed on all able to pay, not only on few.
2
No we're not willing to, because we need to use the money for paying higher health insurance premiums, saving up for the cuts in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that will be needed to keep the deficit from ballooning even further, and offset some of the losses due to state and property taxes diminished deductibility under the new tax law.
5
That's idiotic. They're arguing against policy.
I have never read a more disingenuous editorial. Why do you think Apple is now bringing money back. Tell us the "Research" don't just mention whose research.
13
You cite several instances of tax cuts that did not result in the economic growth goals always cited by those proposing. In the USA and abroad. One after another. Over thirty + years. A compelling argument against the new tax policy.
But it took me three minutes or so to read this editorial. The outer envelope edge of our Fearless Leader's attention span hovers around one minute, from all reports, i.e. this is an exercise in futility reminiscent of Arlo Guthrie's classic 'Alice's Restaurant' (excerpt below):
>>Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.<<
2
The new tax law is a Trojan Horse for what Reoublicans really want-with the newly formed deficit this will create, Republicans will be crying for entitlement reform to cover the shortfall in revenue. They will yell and scream how Democrats are spending spending spending on social service and safety net programs beyond our ability to pay for them. Look how hard it was for Republicans to agree to merely fund CHIP? That is a no-brainer, much less funding for other services....like SNAP and Medicare and such. Add what sacrafices will America need to make to pay for the wall? Republicans want to sell off some parkland to pay for all this too. NOT better for America.
47
It is just tiring to debate on this topic. Yes, everything you said was true. But inequality is a product of human nature. We should all agree that communism can only work for bees and ants. Interestingly, inequality could be found in prehistoric tribes. Also interestingly, leaders back then were frequently religeous leaders too. So fighting against our own human nature is going nowhere. It is part of our DNA.
Clearly to me, liberals and liberal new media are not serious about the issues. The real problems are (1) the gaps are too huge; (2) meritocratic system is not working. Instead, liberals are attacking capitalism and they also introduce a pseudo-equality approach of affirmative action. Liberals are part of the "legacy" of ruling elites and they and Hollywood elites are no saints. Just look at their own societies. You see glass ceilings everywhere. Using NYT as an example, is meritocratic system really working inside? Rich and powerful families may have different political ideas. But their family members are all going to the same schools and share the very same social network. How could they still preaching "equality"?! The news are not fake. But the intentions are. I am afraid! Sad!
9
As you acknowledge, income inequality is "too huge." But you propose nothing to alleviate this in terms of policy. If a small portion of the population owns most of the wealth, what do you think will happen if we cut corporate taxes by 15%? Where are we supposed to get tax revenue from?
You complain that the meritocratic ideal is not working. I agree. But you don't explore why this is the case. Higher education costs and healthcare costs have skyrocketed while wages have been stagnant for decades. It's not a meritocracy, because the means by which to break into the middle class and beyond have become much more difficult to attain. People didn't all of a sudden become lazy, as Republicans would have you believe. These same Republicans will then turn around and argue that Medicaid and Social Security cuts are necessary because of shortfalls created by massive corporate tax cuts.
3
Union membership has been going down for years and that dip perfectly aligns with the growth of income inequality.
3
But pure capitalism doesn't work either. it results in monopolies, impoverished population and at the ends, it ruins the societies through wars and revolutions. I do not see how capitalism itself will bring equality or correct unworking meritocracy system.
2
BREAKING NEWS!! READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!
TRUMP LIES AND THE RICH GET RICHER!
Trickle down economics wins another round. Those billions and billions of dollars, moldy from being stashed in dark places overseas are beginning to find their way home where they will be magically turned into disks of zinc, clad with the thinnest of copper coatings, to be doled out to the laboring class. Meanwhile the C-suite class must shoulder on with little to show but 5- and 6-figure raises and bonuses, all the while while bearing the burden of the increase in taxes owed on their fattened capital gains and dividend checks. It's a sacrifice, but they are willing to do it. Patriotism is no respecter of privilege.
9
All of this corporate wonderment trickling down to employees is some of the absolute cheapest form of publicity money can buy. Much of it is delayed until later in the year.
And that news the Democrates will be incapable of exploiting.
4
The democrats could have exploited this or offered a viable alternative but they barely whimpered. Instead they shut the government down to make illegal aliens citizens. This shows where their priorities are and it isn't with the average citizen anymore than the republicans.
We and future generations are being taxed without representation. The plutocrats, who do not represent us and yet received a multi-trillion dollar tax cut windfall - transferring our and future generation's taxes into their pockets - get off by insulting us by giving a few of us a lousy penny tip. May they choke on their stolen wealth.
11
Walmart may be paying bonuses in March, but it has been cutting, and will continue cutting, employee hours, so that employees end up paying for their own bonuses. I don't know why this wasn't reported in the article, and I suggest the NYT check it out, in the interest of fair and complete reporting.
13
As well, the reduced hours will eliminate the company's obligation to support the health care programs that cut off at parttime levels.
1
Just watch the stock market go parabolic it tells you all you need to know.
4
Executives and capitalists are essential, workers are replaceable. Recall CF&I of yesteryear: a dead mule was an expense, a like worker was replaceable. And the beginning of a great fortune. No dif today.
The U.S. government forgave a tax bill of 17% on 252 billion dollars. That amount of money, 35.3 billion, would have provided funding for roughly 14,000 teachers, without touching the principal.
Math: (252 billion) times (14% forgiveness) times (4% rate of return) divided by ($100,000 annual teacher cost) = 14,112
7
But when that money is bought back to the US, it will be taxed over and over again. Stock buyback: capital gains tax. Bonus to executives: income tax and FICA. Dividends to investors: income tax. Expanding operations: sales tax, income tax on construction workers.
You ignore that the money was brought back only because of the tax cut. There would be zero taxes on the money without the tax cut.
1
There is an error in this calculation because the actual tax rate paid by Apple was 15%. Thus, the amount Apple saved was 20% of 252 billion, an amount that would fund 20 thousand permanent teaching positions.
The NYT editorial board is grasping at straws trying to find negatives it is pathetic attempt. They argue that if "Republicans in Congress wefe serious about helping workers via the tax code...they could have cut taxes on the middle class....!
News flash editorial board they DID cut taxes on the middle class, along with a corporate tax cut.
Trump is proving beyond any doubt that supply side works in direct conflict with the "progressive" narrative, and our "progressives" are in full panic mode.
10
"Proving beyond any doubt"?!? They passed the tax cut a month ago, we have no idea how it's affecting the economy. As far as our recent history is concerned (see Kansas), supply side has never worked-- so the "progressives" are being a lot more responsible with their forecast than you are. But I suspect you know that.
Didn't Bush tax cut "prove" it before Trump? Why would it be different this time?
"News flash editorial board they DID cut taxes on the middle class, along with a corporate tax cut."
Newsflash to the clueless: the individual taxes cuts expire within 7 years. The corporate cuts are permanent. Within 7 years normal Americans will be paying more in taxes than they do now to subsidize the corporate tax cuts. '
Next time read ALL the facts, not just the ones you like, or your favorite right wing entertainer tells you about.
This is a misleading title. I think by “bosses” they mean large corporations as a whole. It is yet to be seen this time around if we, the average folk, will see “trickle down” or “trickle on” economics. History says it likely is to be latter.
5
It's America folks. Love it or change it.
It makes sense to invite investment to the US. It doesn't make sense to give tax breaks to the rich when our country is so desperately in need of funds for things that matter: education, poverty, infrastructure. The boss typically doesn't need more money in the corporate world.
It would also be good to have a president who could talk about the "tax cut" as a device to encourage investment, not as a bait and switch show for the middle and lower class earners, who may or may not get a $1000 bonus. As if that's going to change anybody's life.
5
The fact that Walmart is closing so many Sam's Clubs made them realize that paying poverty wages takes away their customers. Slow thinkers, I guess.
Social services and infrastructure will be cut back, deficit will grow, taxes on middle class will go up. The 5% will build their gated communities, and live in their Richard Cory misery and bitterness, worshipping the money they neither need nor really want.
Unemployment is down, but employment is also down, because people have given up. Opioids are taking the place of hope and dreams. Republicans are truly without heart.
8
The rising tide lifts all yachts.
151
I too like sarcasm. Thanks for the much-needed chuckle.
1
Maybe so, but if a dinghy is tied to a piling with a short rope, the rising tide will simply swamp it. For short rope "read tied to a firm by lack of skills for a job in some other industry where those skills are valued, and inertia - lack of courage - to leave the dead end job for a more promising future." Dying industries are t new to this world. Nor are skinflint employers. Courageous employees of either have always picked up and left for greener pastures. And, until recently, they did it without the benefit of unemployment pay and community colleges. So what if an unemployed coal miner takes a big pay cut and foregoes his shiny new pickup truck this year and next. If not afraid to try, he may have to leave the coal mine for where a more promising firm is located, but the result may be a new productive life in a new field and new job. Of course a coward can sit despondently and wail at his hard luck while waiting for the mine to reopen of another to open nearby.
1
It's quite a shame. I mean, all of that federal revenue that is going to be lost... Will there be enough funding left to build the Wall?
Oh, this is where the middle class gets to play a role!
4
If you want a good pay, good working conditions, good benefices, do not wait for a tax cut, there is only one way to get that. Build good democratic unions. This is the only way.
8
It's not the only way, but it's a darn good one.
However small those $1,000 raises may seem to some, it's a huge amount to many Americans. Of course companies are using these moves for a PR benefit, but so what? It helps people. Let's not discourage them!
8
And when the 1.4 Trillion added debt-- to the existing debt, with interest, balloons in a few years and your tax cuts expire, what then? Your puny $1K is going to look a whole lot different. Companies are sitting in record amounts of cash (READ financial papers), they don't need these breaks and the little guy and cuts to social security will have to pony up to pay this massive debt.
3
(just dreaming...)
with a big thousand dollar bonus like that...
I could pay off my overdue phone bill... or pay the past due rent on one of smaller Kushner suburban slum garden apartments... or buy enough groceries for a week or two... or have my absessed tooth pulled... and still have enough left over for an ice cream cone...
OR, I could take the money to my friendly neighborhood opiod pusher, buy some drugs, have a weekend off from my life of stress and toil... sell the rest of the drugs at a profit... buy some more drugs with the proceeds... try to avoid an od... and be in drugs and a little walking around money all the way through Valentine's Day.
it's the Ameican dream! pull yourselves up by your bootstraps!
What we are witnessing is a typical trickle down Republican economic ploy, which starts with a boom & ends with a blast. It was used by Reagan & Bush, & ended in a recession. Unfortunately, it will help Trump keep his mandate after the Mid Term Elections.
7
News flash. The vast majority of BHO recovery benefits went to, surprise!! The top. He may have been a black, Kenyan, socialist but his policies were the same old helping hand to the top.
Instead of expanding "the earned-income tax credit for poorer workers", Trump and the Republicans in congress in passing their recent tax bill "chose to write giant checks to big investors on the accounts of future generations" as rightly pointed by you in this article.
So if anyone in this country thinks that Trump and the Republicans really care for us the poor and the middle class then they should have a double take on the recently cleared bill in the congress.
That particular bill has as much pork n' barrel that one could find in any of the tax bills passed by any of the previous Republican led congress and their presidents.
Under this current tax bill, the only long term beneficiaries will be the giant corporations and the Republican donors and stinking rich president Trump.
The big businesses and their affiliates like Walmart will take this tax cut and use the profits to buy back their stock to the tune of $4 billion "which will benefit its investors by raising the share price "as written by you here compared to the $700 million that the owners say they'd spend "on bonuses and higher wages for cashiers,drivers and other hourly workers."
If it was the other way around, where the workers busting their chops in Walmart,Apple and other big corporations here in U.S. were given the same amount of money distributed among them instead of buying back of stocks, then we could easily call their efforts as if they're middle and lower class motivated.
Not other way around.
3
The Pelosi 'workers are getting crumbs' argument rings hollow. Global gtowth, US GDP grow in at its best rate in years, record low unemployment, wages up, labor force participation up, food stamp and welfare recipients down. Pension funding up, 401k up....and billions of repatriated dollars returning. The list of companies making long term investments in the US is too long to mention. No the tax bill will accelerate our national prosperity and that is a good thing.
By the way---what exactly was the Democrats tax proposal to counter the Republicans?
6
Come on, they didn’t need Democrats to pass this! We have seen this all before! Replay
The democrats proposal was to shut the government down to try to make illegal aliens jump the line to citizenship. Their priorities are as much on display as the crooks on the right.
Carried interest loophole. Huge benefit to hedge fund managers. Huge adder to the deficit. Another Trump promise, to repeal. another Promise broken. Another lie.
6
With so many examples from multiple countries of corporate tax cuts and corporate tax repatriation NOT leading to increased wages and job creation, we have to ask ourselves, what comes after "once burned, shame on you, twice burned shame on me, thrice burned.........."
The average apartment in the United States cost roughly $1,200 per month. The economically prudent ratio has always been that rent should not exceed 1/4 of your salary, so you would need to earn $4,800 per month. This translates to an hourly wage of about $27. The Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25per hour.
A Congress acting in its citizens' best interest would slap these figures up on a whiteboard, and work backwards. How can we get housing prices lower and wages higher? That is the single most important factor stressing out the working class followed by healthcare. Giving people a one-time $1,000 holiday bonus and attributing it to Trump's Tax Cuts is such a charade.
How many times does an idea have to fail before Congress bans it from the options list or adds nuance to the law so there would be consequences for corporations if they do not then raise wages, improve employee healthcare coverage and create jobs?
6
If you believe that increased income inequality is bad for the economy (a BIG if), what I would like to know is how do you judge inequality on a company by company basis?
CEO pay ratio does not seem to be an accurate barometer of gross inequality. it seems to be used to be inflammatory than to be predictive of an inverse effect on company growth (or reflective of immorality).
The reason I ask is that I believe most (50% or more) of the population owns corporate stock through a 401 (k) or a pension fund. If there were an accurate, clear and publicized barometer of income inequality (Managerial pay ratio after taxes and benefits? ) then perhaps all of us shareholders could put pressure on Corporations.
“We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.”
- Ursula K. Le Guin
3
If you want to know the real reason for the outrageous income inequality that has been plaguing this nation for nearly half a century, you need not go any further than examining the incomes of the average American worker and those of the managers and investors who are the main beneficiaries of an industry's profits.
Of course these dyas one tends to blame this problem on technology and globalization, but that doesn't alter the fact that there's no such thing as "trickle-down economics" -- because the money always stays at the top.
If anything, the recent Republican tax plan will guarantee that this practice won't change in the forseeable future.
This will not make America great again, but it will make some Americans very much richer.
4
It's deja vu all over again ie app. 2007. Sooner or later the bill will come due, ie trillions in deficits the republicans created.
Let us hope we will come to our senses and reverse them if the dems take control in 2018-2020 otherwise we are staring at 2007 all over again.
2
What a shock! And who could have foreseen it? (But almost all the Democrats in congress and the majority of citizens in the country.)
Anyone who believes anything issuing from either Trump, Fox news, or republican members of congress needs to have their heads examined, and do it quickly!
How obvious can this plan for changing America to a land of owners and serfs be?
2
Mae West had an expression, used in many of her scripts where she eyes a piece of beefcake up and down, and then announces, "You...can be had!" In higher-toned circles, in Puccini's opera "Tosca" the evil Scarpia asks La Tosca her price.
With Trump and his collaborating GOP, that price was very low for the vast majority of Americans, who can be had for $4,000 or less, while the political donor class and businesses get subsidized by the rest of us. This "tax cut" is as fraudulent as anything Trump says or touches.
2
I work for a company and they have been slowly forcing teams in the US offices to outsource certain work to the India office for a couple of years now (we have offices in 6 continents). Now it's accelerating and will not be stopping over any tax break. Entry level professional jobs (i.e. require at least a Bachelor's and paid well) are not being backfilled when they quit - the work is going to India instead. For now the managers who managed these entry to mid-level employees, manage clients, etc. are told they're needed to manage US and India teams. We know the reality is that as soon as the process of working with India is set, many of us will be out of a job. Meanwhile, the executives and senior non-executive staff will never have to worry because their jobs could never be outsourced given what they do - and their bonuses will probably be larger. This is what a company that started out small and built itself into a leader in its industry has turned in to. The company's profits are solid year after year, (annual raises have always been far higher than others, perks offered), yet they want to outsource the work anyway - and the quality of the work is not what it is stateside. Tax breaks aren't going to change their minds - it will just put more money in the executives' pockets. It's actually sad to see what a once good company has become - all due to greed.
5
This is all too frustrating. While I am no proponent of the Trump Tax Giveaway of 2017 can we at least wait and see what actually happens before pronouncing them dead.
The tax cuts aren't the problem. The worthlessness of the US dollar is the problem. In a country that takes in 3.3 trillion in revenue, spends 4 trillion and owes about 20 trillion, adding another 5 percent to the national debt is not the problem. We are already bankrupt with no serious intentions of ever paying off the debt. In fact, given that it exceeds GDP, we couldn't if we wanted too.
And while it's amusing to hear that Apple is making a one time payment of 39 billion to the treasury, that's a drop in the bucket of what we spend and what we owe. Although it's nice to know they had that kind of cash lying around.
These tax cuts are about allowing people to live today, they are not about making the country solvent.
1
I must agree with abigail49 about Medicare for All Now. Others have tried to make the point that it makes economic sense without success, so I won't go into the numbers any more than to say Iv'e done it hundreds of times and it's the logical answer.
2
Corporations have been sitting on unprecedented amounts of cash - trillions - for several years. They could have raised wages long ago. And if Republicans were truly concerned about low-wage workers, they would have raised the minimum wage.
4
It's not just the tax cuts, it's cuts to healthcare, it's anti-worker and anti-union policies, it's a Supreme Court justice who will favor the interests of corporations over those of workers, etc... One thing will certainly be "turbocharged" by these policies, the wealth and income gap. Realistically we are no longer headed toward plutocracy, we are there.
5
Typical Fortune 500 CEO comp is some 350 times that of the average employee at that company. Now, will these tax cuts tends to move CEO comp toward 355 times worker pay or 345 times worker pay ?
1
This is a money grab for the wealthy. The only way average people are going to make some money is to jump ship and get a higher paying job in the tight labor market.
1
I'll believe it when I see it. Even as my boss had his tax rate cut, his compensation from Medicare and insurance companies was cut too. So net/net can he pay me more?
I have watched American companies sell off assets like a recently paupered millionaire sells of his rolexes and fancy cars. My supermarket just closed because the giant European conglomerate that bought it also owns the other market just down the road. If I buy a beer not brewed locally, there is a good change the profits are going to Belgium.
Why are these companies good investments for Europe and so toxic to Americans that we shed them like molting snakes? In America we are hoarding cash, buying back our own stock, and putting money in gambling funds in the market. We are even selling high end chunks our cities to foreigners.
So are we really going to invest in jobs, new businesses, wages, employees? Color me skeptical. I'm feeling just a bit Doubting Thomas over the whole GOP tax giveaway. Show me in person that it is really working, and we talk. But I probably still won't buy the tale.
3
"But beware the spin: Regardless of what’s in the tax overhaul, businesses have an incentive to raise wages to retain and attract workers because of the tight job market."
Except they don't. That's not how capitalism works.
See Japan: almost zero unemployment, more jobs than people for college graduates, and falling and/or stagnant wages. The far-right likes to pretend Japan doesn't exist when they vomit their anti-immigration rhetoric, but the fact is the unemployment rate is not the determinant factor in determining wages.
First, there's the data itself: is it reliable or not? What is the methodology each country uses? In the USA, for example, if you worked for one week in the last six months (if memory doesn't fail me), you're not considered unemployed.
Then, there's automation: if a country's birth rate is negative, capital can automate the phantom jobs with machinery. Unemployment stays low, but wages don't rise.
Last, there's class struggle: rising organic composition of capital (automation) decreases profit rate. Lower profit rate means lower competitivity, which rises the probability of bankruptcy of said capital. The only way to slow it is intensifying labor exploitation rate -- making people working longer hours for the same or less pay (that's what happens in Japan). The workers may choose if they want to keep their jobs or lose it altogether, even if there're -- for now -- more jobs elsewhere (before the domino effect begins): advantage capitalist.
There are many studies showing facts do not matter all that much in forming beliefs. Most republicans think tax reform is great and most democrats, not so great. The Times should nevertheless be applauded for pointing out not only how past business tax cuts have affected investment and workers but also for pointing to the alternative policy choices left on the table (eg, earned income tax credits to directly assist the working poor).
The choices this country has now made are existential. Expert estimates are that tax costs and spending increases are widening the budget deficit by 1.5%er annum. The tax stimulus will only stimulate through 2019 and even 2019 US GDP growth is expected to come in at under 2% (per Capital Economics).
What should we have done with the money we are borrowing from our grandchildren? Should we invest it in training underemployed workers? Should we invest it in encouraging formation and maintenance of nuclear families? Should we invest it in policies that address income inequality, such a major threat to our country?
Easy to blame republicans for blinding following the likes of Trump, Mnuchin, Ryan and McConnell. What about the democrats? If the democrats ever had an alternative plan, they never got it off the ground. In the movie "Darkest Hour," Churchill learns the secret to winning against long odds is to take your case to the people...where were Schumer and Pelosi?
1
The tax cut is the GOP's idea of a recycling program. Tax cuts for Corporations, the Corporate Chieftains and major stockholders translate into donations to GOP campaign coffers. Those campaign contributions fund reelection campaigns, which enable those same people who passed the tax cut to get reelected. They then claim the Federal Government is too far in debt to fund critical programs of the most benefit of average citizens. The Citizens United Decision of the Roberts Court contributed to this daisy chain.
1
When the tax bill was passed, AT&T were one of the first to announce bonuses. I did some basic math using their current profits and the expected tax benefits, and it was something like 6% of the projected savings went back to the employees. So the owners (people like me with a 401K) pocket the 94% with a little subtracted to sweeten the execs. That 6% looked like an Oliver Twist message to the President and GOP: 'Please Sir, can I have some more?' But then I'm just a cynic.
2
Want to know where the tax savings have gone? Watch the price-earnings ratios - once absurdly extravagant.
2
Corporate America trumpets the tax fraud with raises they could have given before the tax cuts and written them off as business expenses to reduce their taxes. Taxes on the wealthy elite in our country ran around 75% during the Roaring 20's and from 90% to 70% during the post war boom decades of the 50's and 60's, so the correlation that high taxes impedes economic activity doesn't hold water. What the data shows is high taxes on the wealthy actually encourages economic development because only fools would hoard their cash and pay high taxes rather than plowing their earnings back into their companies or give it away to charity. Republicans hope the additional $70 a month most Americans will receive for a couple years is enough to buy us off with an additional family meal out each month, because they need our silence as they make good on their pledge to unwind Social Security and Medicare and, as FDR said, to throw old people on the trash heap like wrinkled rinds.
1
I don't know about economics, trickle-down or otherwise, but I know I've got a lot more money in my 401k. Isn't that a good thing?
5
"They could have cut taxes on the middle class and expanded the earned-income tax credit for poorer workers. Instead, they chose to write giant checks to big investors on the accounts of future generations." Why would they have done that? Those people don't have any money to contribute and most of the poor don't vote. If they do they don't vote for Republicans.
1
The same old same old from the Times. It must be a slow news day
Take this: "Regardless of what’s in the tax overhaul, businesses have an incentive to raise wages to retain and attract workers because of the tight job market." Exactly! But did the tight job market fall from the sky? No. Try business investment for one. And for that thank in large part a policy climate that is favorable to investment.
That is why we have the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years.
Then there is the $1.5 trillion added to the national debt. Enough with your crocodile tears. Where was this concern when Obama was racking up $10 trillion in deficits?
Won't poor and middle class families have to pay fro Obama's deficits too? In any case, when you add all federal and state taxes together, earners in the top 1% pay about 43% of their incomes in tax. The poorest fifth pays 13%. The GOP tax reform will (regrettably in my view) change that some, but not by much. In absolute and relative terms the wealthy will pick up the lion's share of the tab for the $1.5 trillion deficit.
5
Since the President and his family aren't shy about boasting about themselves I'm surprised not one of them has mentioned the amount of the bonuses or the pay increases they plan on giving the employees who work for them. Or what manufacturing they plan on bringing back to the US. Strangely silent, no?
3
The simple fact is that the middle class did get a tax cut, and the child tax credit was increased.
3
I am told I am receiving a bonus. Simply put, it is small, and a one time thing. I am sure that wasn't the goal of those who chose to issue them. I am certain that the deciders will reap huge rewards in comparison to the amounts paid to other employees. All of this, of course, comes as we have given up trying to collect taxes properly owed to our government. That is the reason for the $1.5 trillion deficit we are going to add to our national debt. Thus, I feel it incumbent on me to hand my bonus to my children, as they are the ones who will be financing that debt for the rest of their lives.
1
"Instead, they chose to write giant checks to big investors on the accounts of future generations." You mean "big campaign contributors", cuz that is who this travesty of a tax bill is who the republicans are paying back, investors or no...
1
"Take Walmart. The company says it will spend $700 million on bonuses and higher wages for cashiers, drivers and other hourly workers."
Walmart employs about 2.1 million of those folks. So the average cashier, driver, or other hourly worker will see about $333. or about $6 a week.
Steve Mnuchin will probably say they can all go out now and buy new cars.
2
The Times seems dedicated to asserting that the tax cuts won't be a positive for much of America. I suppose that had a purpose while there was a chance of defeating the legislation, but now that's it is law, why not wait for the actual results, which should come early enough? "Research shows", "experts say" is little more than economic fortune telling, and economists have a very mixed record of predicting the future. It's almost as if the Times wants the tax cuts to fail.
3
The corporate boards who manage the corporate money are duty bound to enhance shareholder value. That means dividends to the shareholders and stock buy backs to increase share value for the SHAREHOLDERS!
Wise boards may also foresee future development through investment in infrastructure and personnel. That is possible even alongside their mandate to maximize shareholder returns. Not the board's top priority.
Boards work for the shareholders NOT the employees!
Pay raises are very much dependent on base pay. Bosses have higher salaries to go with their greater resonsibilities so of course bosses' raises are bigger. Most of the tax savings go to "investors" aka the owners and the ones paying all the corporate taxes (as well as payroll, property, and other taxes.) So the answer is obivious. Eliminate the corporate tax altogher and workers will get even better pay raises.
The debt can be addressed by eliminating welfare*, food, stamps, and other giveaways. *This is include all the welfare to our "allies" e. g dependents. Let Europe, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, S. Korea, and others pay for their own denfense. Especially Europe whom we've been supporting for over a century - WWI, WWII, Marshall Plan, cold war, NATO. Europeans might have to give up 6 weeks vacation, cradle to grave healthcare, retirement at 60. But not the US taxpayers' job to support Europeans and others.
3
And, it’s worth keeping in mind, most Americans own very little, if any, stock at all. So big gains in the market are going, as usual, to the top 10 %, while the debt and deficit shoot up to pay for it. This is dangerous, because eventually payroll taxes, not cap gain taxes will pick up the lion’s share of the tab. And we know who pays them., and it ain’t guys like Ol Bonespur.
I am completely stunned after reading the results of the very, very, good tax plan. In fact, it is absolutely Tremendous. It is an act of pure Genius
Everyone who is surprised by this article raise your hand. Hmm, the only hands I see are the men and women wearing Rolex watches and $5,000 custom-made designer suits and dresses.
Spoilsport.The economy is rebounding. Give credit where credit is due. Cited "many experts" does not cut the mustard.
4
So I’m a 65 y baby boomer Sanders supporter Hillary not like her er,
and I bought stocks and index stuff over the years. Not a fortune but I’m a saver. So now my welfare is tied to the stock market. So how should I feel now that my savings have grown by 30% since Mr. racist pig trump was elected. How should I feel? Well now I feel, give it a chance before you condem it. I would have been happy getting an honest 5% from the banks but they don’t need my money, don’t want to pay for it, and why should they since the government loans them money for practically free. I saved, I invested in some stocks and I hope the present business environment persists even after Mueller slaps the handcuffs on Trump.
1
Ah the politics of envy. Let’s not celebrate the many many companies giving out $1000 bonuses to each worker. Let’s not celebrate the pay raises. Let’s bash them for not doing more? Let’s complain that stocks might go up? Let’s be upset that others will benefit, or CEOs might benefit - and grouse that this takes away from us somehow.
Please spread love not hate. Scarcity fears entrap many of is.
3
The Republicans and the FOX TV pundits are measuring economic success by the gain in Wall Street ignoring the people in Main Street. We do not see any change in living standards for ordinary people. They are talking about some bonuses and that is only dog bones for working people. I do not see any salary increase for most of the Americans. Income gap between the rich and poor is really shameful. The trickle down economy never worked for the 99 percent of Americans and is not working now. What is working now? More donations from the richest and corporations to the Republican Party. Just after tax scam bill passed, Koch brothers paid 500,000 dollars to Payl Ryan and they are donating 400,000 dollars more for midterm election.Robin Hood in reverse. Our government is by the rich, of the rich and for the rich.
These arbitrage opportunities for bonuses are available because of the way that the new law’s effective date, rate changes, and expensing provisions interact with longstanding rules regarding tax accounting. The gimmick is written into the code and not all companies have same tax year ending 12/31/17
2
This is exactly the gift to the 1% that everyone knew it was even as it was being voted on. Birthday cake for billionaires and crumbs for the rest. This kind of pillaging of the treasury and looting of the economy never ends well.
2
As soon as the Democrats gain control of the White House again, we hear the GOP moaning about the deficit to which they have become a major contributor.
1
Wouldn't it have been better to peg the corporate tax rate at zero and then recover a healthy portion of corporate profits as they flow through the economy? For example, the Times says that most of the tax cut gains "will actually flow to shareholders and top executives." True. But if we're talking about year end bonuses and dividend checks, then the IRS can collect on that income at the highest possible rate allowed by law.
The Times also mentions that Walmart will invest $4 billion in stock buybacks, benefiting their investors. Again, that's true. But Walmart has to buy that stock from someone, and that person will almost certainly realize a profit on the sale. Tax that profit at the highest legal rate.
I concede that hoarded cash is a problem. One solution is to grant companies a 3 year tax-free vacation to figure out how to reinvest that money in our economy. If after 3 years that cash is still unproductively sitting there, then it should be taxed at a punitive rate of, say, 50%.
The idea is encourage firms to stop wasting time and resources on scheming tax dodges and concentrate instead on what they do best--creating jobs and even more wealth that can then be captured by taxing the income of private individuals who have been the beneficiaries of this dynamic. Our government's attitude ought to be something like this: "We don't care how much money you make as long as you reinvest it in our economy."
How will the GOP tax cuts benefit the majority of people?
In 1998 the top 10% owned 68% of America's wealth.
In 2016 the top 10% owned 76% of America's wealth.
(8% gain in 18 years)
If the GOP tax cut does not stop this trend, allowing it to continue unabated for another fifty years, the top 10% will own pretty much all of America's wealth.
How does this tax bill reverse that trend in favor of the bottom 90%? So that in the next fifty years their share of wealth increases, or even remains flat.
11
In corporate America, the duty is to reward shareholders and owners. It has always been that way. It will continue to be that way. Period.
One-time bonuses are appreciated, but they ain’t wage increases that will help lift up the working class in an enduring way.
And I anticipate that most of corporate America’s expansion plans stimulated by tax cuts will actually be overseas. That’s where the growth opportunities are, that’s where labor is cheap. Again, this will benefit shareholders and owners, and not the American working class.
Sorry Joe Six-Pack, your party just stuck it to you again.
19
The republicans feign anguish every time even a dollar is added to the national debt and weep about the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren. The more than a trillion dollars this tax cut will burden them with worries them not at all. They have taken care of the high rollers who will presumably reciprocate when the time for election funding comes.The fiction that this is a tax cut for the people who need it ranks with other notable fictions such as "the sun shone on the inaugural and it was the biggest inaugural ever" We inhabit a weird land which is best described by Lewis Carroll's " Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" which was after all written as political satire - reread it!
11
Many years ago, typical employee wages usually occurred yearly, if the company felt they had generated sufficient growth. Those across the board raises were about five cents an hour. If my math is correct, that amounts to one hundred and four dollars yearly before taxes. There were also years that the board gave no raises, so trickle down is difficult unless there is much encouragement from management for employee upward growth. To increase employee growth Companies need to pay for ongoing Education. Not mentioned is the cost of living, in some areas greater than others, increased cost of living indicates less money to live on.
Of course, fairly, wages solely are not the total picture of employee earnings. Many large Companies do offer Healthcare Insurance to their employees. Healthcare is certainly an endless money pit, where costs and deductibles increase yearly and the coverage decreases. Most Companies that used to cover employees and their families have continually increased the employee contributions and no longer offer coverage for their families.
Finally, the Republican Tax Law was always written to give Corporations and the 1% huge savings, the little guy was an afterthought to guarantee a small savings until after the next election.
9
Here is a somewhat wonkish way to look at this:
Let’s assume you have a company with a 20% labor cost and a 10% profit before taxes.
If your stockholders would allow you to return the same $ profit after tax, then the company could afford to raise its labor costs by 9%.
3
Your statement assumes that stockholders' ultimate goal is to pay their employees more. I think that's a false assumption. In my experience most stockholders' goal are to make more profit. If stockholders could magically reduce their labor costs to zero, they would make more profit. Aren't those same stockholders thinking, "Gee, I am making a nice profit, With current payroll costs, I have people filling all my needed jobs. Now, with the tax cut, I can make even more profit!".
Employees' pay follows the same supply and demand rules as any other commodities. If it's harder to find employees to fill your jobs, you may have to pay more.
Also, companies don't hire more people because they are making more profit. They hire people when they have something for them to do, like making more products. Middle and lower class tax cuts would have put more money in the pockets of the people who would spend it to buy those products. Instead of stimulating the economy, we have rewarded the donor class. It's OK, if that's your goal, just don't be dishonest and claim it's something else.
It has been proven time and again that 'trickle-down economics' doesn't work. On the other hand, in a consumer economy like ours, 'trickle-up economics' does.
Agree. That was my point.
The two sides of a budget are income and expenditure. Cutting income through tax breaks for the highest earning corporations and individuals only adds to the burden on the middle class and lower income earners as either they have to pick up the deficit through higher tax burdens and decreased funding for schools, healthcare and the like.
42
What I can't understand is why local governments are throwing money at Amazon to open a new headquarters, but doing nothing to help the business who are already in their communities , already employing workers, and already paying taxes. Why do Bezos, and the rest of the billionaire boys club need financial aid, but everyday more and more small businesses are closing because of rising rents and high taxes, even as consumers are spending less and they must compete with big corporations for market share.
I've seen some truly absurd comments lately re the alleged financial windfall coming to the middle class. Apparently we have not been sufficiently grateful for the $1000 some of us have coming. Sorry, but most of us living in high cost states know $1000 is not enough to dig out of.the financial hole we have been in since the last recession. My husband lost most of his savings and had to live off what was left to survive 18 mos of unemployment, a divorce, and keep his home. We aren't getting any raise, and our taxes are likely going up, so another year of not replacing the leaky roof (10k), repairing the driveway and sidewalk (5k), ect. But I've made a few extra cents per share on the few grand I have in an investment fund, so I guess I should be happy.
180
Good points I can relate. My IRA seems to be rising (for now) but I can only take a loan from that which will need to be repaid immediately if I go to another job). For those who think they are doing well on that sort of thing and credit Trump (they should not) then I hope they are 65 years old and retire within six months
3
I doubt that my tax cut will pay for a new refrigerator, which I dearly need. But it apparently allows whatever company makes the refrigerators aboard Air Force One to charge $24 million for two of them.
5
Great points! Why not help the businesses already there? Amazon has killed retail businesses, why invite them in tax free?
2
Salaries and wages are tax deductible expenses for corporations. The lower the tax rate, the greater the after tax cost to shareholders of increasing employee compensation. Therefore, I see no reason why a lower income tax rate would raise employee compensation.
The only theory by which it would increase employee compensation would be if the entire economy were to become so juiced that there were a labor shortage, and therefore employers had to pay more to attract and retain employee talent.
I think the anecdotal cases of corporations paying employee bonuses purportedly based on the new tax rates are stunts designed to win favor with the Administration, and to deflect political pressure for a higher minimum wage.
69
"Stunts to deflect political pressure for a higher minimum wage."
Thank you for that very astute observation.
3
As the trickledown theory of economic growth is a fallacy, so is the Republican charade about the corporate tax cuts translating into the wage increase and job creation, as the available empirical experience has been rather contrary. For, having extracted such benefits from the state in the past, the corporates have rather preferred to sit on cash piles than investing in creating jobs or to increase wages of the workers. The huge tax cuts provided by the Trump administration to the corporate giants, hedge fund managers, and the real estate developers like Trump himself is clearly a case of reverse trickle down- squeezing the poor to enrich and fatten the already rich, perpetuating the 1%/99% divide in society for ever.
71
It is a matter of time and the country will collapse ! America is also dealing with the highest drug addiction in any country ! the ship is sinking and no one wants to admit it because most Americans have an inflated ego and are easily fooled !
2
The thing that would put money in workers' pockets for sure is single-payer or "Medicare for All" health insurance. Instead of giving huge tax cuts to corporations and waiting until it "trickles down" to the lowest employee on the payroll, which there is no guarantee it ever will, a national health insurance program that assesses a tax on both workers and employers as a percentage of wages and salaries, as Medicare does, would give most middle- and low-wage workers an instant "raise." It would also level the field for small businesses, promote innovative start-ups and make American business more competitive with all those other countries that have national health insurance whose costs are spread more evenly across their economies and not borne most heavily by their businesses. But of course Republicans are not interested in direct benefits to workers and entrepreneurs.They want us to keep waiting and hoping their tax schemes will help instead of hurt us. Meanwhile, our health insurance premiums go up every year.
96
You are asking America to be like Europe ;) they are fighting it all the way ! They do not like socialism in this Christian nation ,although they already practice some of it (military, medicaid and medicare- maybe gone soon ,who needs it ; ) I have lived here now for 35 years and never thought I would dislike the USA at this point.
2
There are several kinds of Trump voters that see this tax reform as the greatest tax law ever. Period. Amongst them, many C-level executives (not all) and shareholder; employees that are grateful for one time approximately $1000 bonus because of having almost no saving and short-term monetary issues and, the ones that will not vote in agreement with their self-interest and continue to live a desperate economic situation.
Meanwhile, there are GOP donors putting millions of dollars to convince people of the virtues of the law but I have not seen a Democratic effort to open peoples eyes and ask "what is there for me", for my children and their college or for middle class retired population and, future generations. Welcome to Trump's second term.
20
All in keeping with “the managerial revolution” of the ‘50s and ‘60s, when American business decided it would focus on using, organizing, and administering power (as distinct from authority). It’s given us the modern Republican Party. And, folks, it’s given us modern social engineering, as Apple, Walmart, myriad other corporations, including, alas, Starbucks, have decided to placate American workers by throwing them a bone or two, and, not quite so coincidentally, increasing demand a bit to allow them to take advantage of their supply, including the innovation that will be forthcoming (dontcha just hunger for a self-driving car?). They’ve got our number—yessiree, they’re gonna mold us the way they want us.
And we’ll be grateful for the jobs, which will allow us to buy that rolling computer called a self-driving car. Personally, I’d rather drive my own car—and I suspect I’m not alone. But we’re about to be (we are being) engineered—and not just with regard to cars.
8
For "Investors" please remember this includes pension funds, insurance companies and college endowments and their beneficiaries: teachers, students, public employees and their communities. it's not as if Trump is the only one who benefits from increased dividends.
18
and everyone with a 401. 403, Roth, rainy day fund, etc.
1
Would have been far more beneficial to the country to simply have borrowed and directly invested 1.5 trillion in infrastructure and public good. Eventually the additional taxes generated and profits would have trickled up to the Corp owners and govt anyway. But ALL would have shared in the legislation.
103
Why borrow the money at all? Have the Fed credit the government's account and start building, sort of a Quantitative Easing for everyone. Worked for the banks, eh?
@Our Road...Similar analogies were made about the housing debacle and ensuing financial collapse. It was stated that it would have been cheaper just too pay off all home loans under 250K, rather than continue to hand out free money to the banksters who largely created the mess in the first place.
But just like the tax cuts, which are geared to the already filthy rich, profitable corporations, and the investor class, benefiting the country and ALL Americans never was the goal. In fact, it never was considered or discussed.
1
Talk is cheap. Promises are just words. There is a gauge that every one has to measure the effects of the tax cuts. That gauge is how much they are paid. Trump promised that we all would get an average rase of $4000. Average household income, not median, is around $73,000. So if you earn around $50,000, you should be getting a raise of $3000, in addition to any cost of living adjustment or the reduction of your tax bracket by 2%. The money in that check is not fake news. Do the math and makeup your own mind. And don't believe there has to be a long lag time before the money shows up. The corporations have the money now. If you make $35,000, Trump promised you another $2000.
The Trump administration has even stated the the boost in pay will trickle down from investments, not a direct transfer of wealth form the tax break. That's another snow job. It's a stall tactic. The money will go to the shareholders.
Speaking of stock prices. Of course the markets are soaring. After tax profits are exploding from the tax cuts. Stocks are priced by their earnings. That is driving up the prices. Keep in mind that 88% of stock is owned by the top 20%, about 50% is owned by the 1% and the bottom 40% owns 6%. Once again, the Trump voters get left out. They will get the crumbs.
Forget the experts. Look at your own personal situation. We will all know what the story is by next Nov.
61
Neither my husband nor I are receiving raises this year, and our employers hear the same "the economy is booming" news that we hear. Do they know something Trump doesn't? I'm frustrated our bosses haven't been duped into doling out the $4K Sarah Huckabee Sanders promised us.
2
The working model for many years now has been to reward the bosses at the top as if they were rainmakers. Now, I have never begrudged people who start business from reaping the rewards of their initiative and ideas, but we have a class of professional management who reap rewards for driving business profits down, or have not been meaningfully involved in making a business grow due to quality of product rather than merger-mania. Of course rewarding the top where bosses can decide they are fist in line is and will continue to be the priority of financial rewards system now hallowed in American management planning.
15
We live in a global economy. My employer was founded in the US over 100 years ago, but with over 50% of sales outside the US, inverted to Ireland to save on taxes. Under the new tax law, they reported they will owe $200M in taxes they didn't anticipate due to the inversion.
Under the old tax law, if Samsung earned $1B in China, and wanted to invest it in the US, they would pay no taxes, as we would welcome them with open arms. If Apple earned the same $1B and wanted to re-invest it in the US, they would have owed $350M in taxes, and only had $650M to invest.
The economy is global, so our corporate tax rate must be globally competitive.
8
I work for a medium-sized company, and my biweekly paycheck is a dollar less this year. We didn't get raises, and our health insurance premiums increased.
My husband is a public employee who at least got a cost of living raise, but the only thing that's made a significant difference in our income in recent years is the Obama executive order concerning overtime for salaried workers earning under $47,476. Before that, my husband was expected to donate his time for free in order to carry out his duties, which vary from week to week, because he was considered a "manager." Well, he is a manager, in the sense that he manages a team of employees and makes important decisions about how they do their work and faces a lot of pressure and responsibilities, but not in the sense that he has any power or say in determining his pay or that of others. He is exactly the kind of worker President Obama was trying to protect.
Because it has the name "Obama" attached to it, Trump was against it. Last I heard, the Justice Department was told not to enforce it. And of course in general the GOP likes any labor practice that extracts value and sends it only upward.
194
Guess if your husband's job is so terrible he would leave it.
Reader in Wash, DC, I do not know where in my comment you got the idea that my husband disliked his job. Should people be compensated fairly only if they dislike their job? Not sure I see your point. Mine was that Trump rejects a measure taken by Obama to help middle-income households.
It's a frequent cry from the right that powerless people should have to earn social equity through suffering that far exceeds what the well-off experience. (See work requirement for Medicaid, a Catch-22 if there ever was one.) You are invited to explain the philosophy that explains why those who are flourishing should demand more and more (see recent tax "reform") while those who are struggling deserve no improvement unless their suffering is worsened.
My family is neither prospering nor suffering. We just want fair and proportional compensation for what we do.
4
Not only will anemic wage increase continue, most workers will notice that their taxes will go up, when you factor in loss of deductions, state income tax rates tied to federal AGI, and local sales/property taxes. Too bad the day of reckoning won't come until after the 2018 elections. And, by the way, they kept the ACA mandate for one more year, which will also hurt people who could not afford $800/month, for a single 60+ year old.
Finally, and do not give President Obama a lot of credit either. The so called "stimulus", and the like, when to the very same people who received giant tax cuts; corporations and the wealthy. Not since the Great Depression, has wage disparity been so high, and wage growth has been so low. In most cases, not even keeping pace with real inflation.
This just proves, that both political parties are beholding to the wealthy, and corporations. I am still waiting for my windfall from Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump.
34
Do you remember the NYTimes, Paul Krugman and Washington Post buying off on the "four percent growth" Obama promised from his "stimulus" package? Even when done in the name of the "downtrodden little guy being exploited by the power of wealth and privilege," a BAD idea remains a bad idea. The only people who believed the "stimulus" package would do anything beneficial were the big city mayors and the usual cast of suspects at the trough. Something else was needed. My question is: why aren't reporters asking Obama how what he did is causing this expansion? I suspect it's because they already know the answer: Obama left office!
1
Nick... "I am still waiting for my windfall from Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump."
That is a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long,long, line you are standing in. You will likely die before your turn comes up. Same here.
I keep trying to tell people...Both sides hate your guts. The republicans hate you more than the democrats. The democrats at least have the decency to let you have a tiny, tiny, slice of the pie. Whereas the republicans tell you to be grateful to lick the crumbs off the floor.
Greedy corporate capitalists are greedy corporate capitalists. Makes no difference if they have a D or an R by their name. It is time for a new system.
2
When you have a tax structure that keeps money out and makes capitol investment in the USA expensive ... guess what happens ?
Why should Apple bring it's profits from sales made outside the USA back home ? .. especially since they don't make any of the products in the USA? We want companies to make the products in the USA and keep the profits in the USA .. and that can only happen when the tax matches the rest of the world.
Apple did not get a tax cut .. because, they were never going to pay it. The money was never coming home.
Why is it so difficult to understand how silly corporate taxes are -- companies don't hoard cash unless they have a reason. They spend it on development and labor or distribute it through dividends or stock buybacks -- all activities that result in taxes paid to the federal government.
6
Companies keep their business overseas because the wages are lower and I don't understand how a company can open up a P.O. box in another country (Caymen Islands)and call themselves a foreign company. The listed rate of tax may have been 35%, but companies were always paying much less.
Why is it so difficult to see how silly income taxes are? If I paid no income tax, I would buy more products, resulting in more jobs and corporate profits, resulting in more government revenue.
Your argument is silly because it can be used to justify the elimination of any tax. But the money has to come from somewhere.
Investment is not a function of a single variable. Companies continue to invest in the united states despite our high tax rate because we have infrastructure and a highly skilled and healthy workforce. Let’s not let those things slide.
Yes, of course the corporate announcements are a giant PR campaign. There's no reason to suspect rewarding bad behavior promotes good behavior. If anything, companies were just given a huge incentive to stock pile as much cash overseas as humanly possibly knowing they can use the bundle as leverage against future tax policy. Most corporate executives are unethical and immoral but they're not stupid.
Sadly, anyone with a sizable stock portfolio is quietly nodding their heads right now in approval while turning a blind eye to the balance sheet fantasy. Never mind that government financed stock buybacks are going on the backs of consumers. If you know anything about economics, consumers are the backbone of the economy. We might wait a decade but this policy is not going to end well. Republicans just planted the seeds of our own destruction again.
44
The companies listed here are not in trouble, and never have been, far from it. Apple could have easily repatriated money to the U.S. years ago. Walmart could easily have increased their workers' regular pay (and without letting thousands of managers go at the same time); just a billion from the Walton heirs would have been a drop in their bucket, but a lifeline for the many thousands of workers who actually make that money for their family.
These corporate tax cuts are great for companies like these - as well as for members of Congress who were able to vote themselves big "bonuses" through this bill...and the fact that, once again, the very top 1% benefits so greatly compared to the vast ocean of workers who are given a few crumbs from the table comes as no surprise in a nation where the love of money has become the unofficial religion.
But since Citizens United and extreme gerrymandering have come to define our politics, it's a simple business-driven ideal that now powers the U.S. - you get what you pay for, and conservatives and their Republican goons have learned the lesson that America is certainly the best Democracy they can buy.
269
Yes indeed the green dollar bills the new elite religion! And those who do not follow are probably part of the drug addiction religion .
3
If we want to remain a consumer based economy, we need to vote in large numbers for Democrats and Independents whose legislation will not be written by multi-national corporations. The middle class has sustained us since WWII; corporate tax cuts will not sustain the middle class, or a consumer economy. The Board members of a large corporation are not going to sustain small home ownership; they will destroy neighborhoods with crooked mortgages and evictions: East L.A. with miles of abandoned homes due to bank foreclosures and evictions. Minuchin was a big part of this; now he flies around with his branded wife on military jets. Gutting the EPA will surely help the oil and gas extraction industries, the environment not so much. Drilling in the Arctic in search of oil benefits which Americans? If drilling in that location manages to puncture the bottom crust, releasing methane gas, who will benefit from the death of marine life in a toxic environment? It took decades to enact environmental protection legislation; we all benefited. If we overturn that legislation, we will all suffer for it. We can all live in L.A. when it was blanketed in smog; or we can all live in Beijing where "medical" masks are useless against fine particle pollution. We can allow fracking with unknown chemicals, no data on what will seep into the water table. Ben Franklin stated that we had a Republic, if we could keep it. We are in danger of losing it.
5
Think about this:
the unemployment rate in the United States — the percentage of the population over 16 not employed but looking for work — is down to 4 percent, the employment rate — the percentage of the population actually working — tells a different story. It stood at around 67 percent in the 1990s, and has since declined to about 63 percent of the adult population. “Many people are so discouraged, they have stopped looking for work,”
Rodger Cohen, Open Societies Under Siege, NYTimes 1/26/18
When this is the more important fact about unemployment, the already paultry trickle down outlined here dwindles to rain in the Sahara.
From this point on, we need to ignore the stats touted and demand analysis of the labor participation rate and the quality of that participation rate. We have no idea how many trump brags about being employed when it's not a living wage that does not have any benefits or security making healthcare let alone savings possible.
As usual the fat are getting fatter at the expense of the not just lean but financially malnourished.
47
We've already seen several major corporations announce stock paybacks and increased compensation for executives. Not mentioned in this op-ed and never mentioned by Trump and his enablers in Congress: many of the raises now being announced are due to increased minimum wage that kicked Jan. 1, 2018, not the tax cuts handed to corporations. Trump is boasting about revival of economy after what he says was years of stagnation. GDP for 4th quarter was 2.65% lower than the last several years under President Obama. Can't pick your own facts.
80
Part 2
Really? what a surprise! Because OF COURSE all the "free cash" is going to go to "the workers" just like it did (pointed out in the article) during the Reagan years.
Yep, unregulated, unmandated, no contract or agreement that the 'tax savings' is for the line workers...yes indeed, the goodwill from company owners will flow down to the lowest level, as it always does.
Most company owners, presidents etc, have been pressing for a raise in the minimum wage for SO LONG, have been pressing for increased federal and state benefits for SO LONG - they're tireless! in their advocating for their staff. Indeed if it wasn’t for all that terrible goverment, gubmint, Big Brother-esque regulation forcing them to keep their foot on the necks of their staff, compelling them to take as much for themselves as possible, and to shaft their workers, to send jobs offshore, to do stock buybacks instead of dividends even [because when the stock rises their bonuses go up; divedends don’t do jack for the corporate suite]…why they’d have been handing out solid gold turkeys at Christmas time, especially now that we can say Christmas again.
16
This is part of the long-planned Republican coup d'Etat. And they are getting YOU to pay for it with the tax "reform" scam.
Paul Ryan fanatic got $500,000 from Koch after it passed. Told you so.
46
The Koch brothers control Congress ! All planned .
2
You never get it, Liberals. It isn't about 'extent', it is about showing the money. You may recall times Republicans brilliantly portray Democrats as giving away money to their voters. When Republicans give away money via tax cuts, the mindless 50% of America become putty and easily fend off puny Democrats.
Liberals are useless. The cycle is terrible because Republicans are only for ancient garbage like fossil fuels, wars and isolationism. Pretty much like all fascists or authoritarians. And then the Liberals take over and trip over themselves. Americans are yet to ignorant to see they bite the hand that feeds them.
2
I'm sorry. Another point of view is useless because it advocates helping those who are struggling financially instead of putting more money in the pockets of people who could never spend all that they have?
Have you people at NY Times checked your 401 (k)'s lately? Apparently not.
Americans are beginning to learn that the dismal, slow growth, high welfare misery of the Obama administration were NOT the new normal of the American economy that Democrat analysts proclaimed. To the contrary Trump's deregulation of needless hindrances on free enterprise has released an explosion of prosperity and opportunity.
His common sense tax reform, which every Democrat in Congress voted against and lied about, provides additional icing on the cake. Trump confidently predicted in his campaign that he could do this, and that we'd all be surprised how quickly he could turn things around. He has done exactly what he predicted.
For a change people who work hard and invest for their futures are the beneficiaries...instead of just the moaners and takers. This is the tradition of American prosperity. Trump understood it and has once again made us the locomotive of the world economy.
Everything liberals foresaw and predicted were off by 180 degrees--if dimwit liberal observers know enough basic geometry to understand what I mean.
11
Because my wages are so low, I can't save enough to make much difference to my 401k, and my employee doesn't match my contribution.
15
I own and small company and I will personally benefit from the "pass through" provision. I will most likely give out bigger bonuses this year because the more I pay my workers, the more I can deduct from my AGI. I tried to give my employees a health care program this year, but all already had health coverage from a spouse or didn't want to let go of their ACA policies. I agree with C Wolfe that most of my employees are living paycheck to paycheck, and that everything I'm thinking about doing will benefit them, but will not be the windfall Trump describes. I wish I could do more, but I can't. Micoz misses the analysis when he says "look at your 401k" as most people don't benefit from stock market increases. The tax bill will create more income inequality and will leave the bill to millennials. Again, I will benefit, but it doesn't make the tax bill right. Keep on reading and voting....
2
Like I wrote above, your analysis just doesn't hold any water. The Clinton and Bush banking deregulations led directly to the Great Recession that cut the value of my 401K in half along with yours if your old enough to remember. We clawed our way back during the Obama years to recoup our loss, so stop blaming Obama for what Republican and conservative Democrats did.
The new math, one for you, one for me, one for you, two for me, one for you, three for me.
14
My God! Knock me over with a feather. The money goes to the C-Suite.
There was some loud harummping that the money would go to research and the unwashed.
We all know better, don't we.
12
Really? what a surprise! Because OF COURSE all the "free cash" is going to go to "the workers" just like it did (pointed out in the article) during the Reagan years.
Yep, unregulated, unmandated, no contract or agreement that the 'tax savings' is for the line workers...yes indeed, the goodwill from company owners will flow down to the lowest level, as it always does.
Most company owners, presidents etc, have been pressing for a raise in the minimum wage for SO LONG, have been pressing for increased federal and state benefits for SO LONG - they're tireless! in their advocating for their staff. Indeed if it wasn’t for all that terrible goverment, gubmint, Big Brother-esque regulation forcing them to keep their foot on the necks of their staff, compelling them to take as much for themselves as possible, and to shaft their workers, to send jobs offshore, to do stock buybacks instead of dividends even [because when the stock rises their bonuses go up; divedends don’t do jack for the corporate suite]…why they’d have been handing out solid gold turkeys at Christmas time, especially now that we can say Christmas again.
3
Absolute baloney. Why must this editorial page continue to mirror the talking points of the Democrat party. Go out in the country and talk to the worker who is getting $1,000 or a wage increase or enhanced 401k or better benefits. They don’t care how much the executives get..all they will say is good for them, now give me my $1,000. The Obama economy was tepid at beast, and while he managed the economic crisis properly early on, the growth forces of the economy were weak. The larger the recession, the larger the springback in terms of economic growth. Find out what real America is thinking.
8
When your children breathe toxic air, when contraception is not covered by insurance, when someone's young daughter is pregnant and can't get an abortion, you will be really happy. When more kids are shot in schools because we still sell semi-automatic weapons, when racism rises because Trump keeps up his outrageous kudos to the alt right, you will be even happier I suppose. It is unfathomable to me that people are willing to make a Faustian bargain to get their $1,000 bonus. We only have one planet and each of us have only one soul. Many of us are throwing them into a black hole.
1
If the NYT wants its readers to believe that its reporting is objectively handling the news regarding corporate investment and salary decisions, then its articles should cover them in detail, putting them in context and - importantly - give them the same prominence as other mainstream publications such as The Financial Times do. So far NYT has effectively buried the Apple and Walmart announcements in its long list of minor headlines rather than giving them bold-faced coverage. This has led me, a long time NYT subscriber and sympathetic, rather progressive reader, to conclude that NYT is trying to downplay such news because of the political beliefs reflected in this editorial. If you want to retain a reputation as the best source for objective news you need to do better.
19
What little reputation the Times had of objectivity was jettisoned in the 2016 election. Now the boards are just an echo chamber.
1
I would believe the tax cut was really raising wages if Walmart spent 4 billion on bonuses and higher wages rather than the 700 million. The Walton family is worth over 70 billion dollars, they could have been paying fair wages for years.
Jeff Bezos is worth 105 billion or so and he needs tax incentives to build his stupid headquarters in whatever community has prostituted itself enough to earn his affection.
We need tax laws than rewards labor over investment earnings, encourages companies specifically to pay higher wages.
191
Strong unions would also help.
6
Note: The Walton's money is there. Mr. Bezos's money is his. The workers show up to accept wages-for-work positions - if they don't want to work, don't accept the wages or the positions. That may not be a perfect system but the Soviet Union, all of Eastern Europe, Cuba, and now Venezuela all show us that it's the best so far (although maybe China and Vietnam are demonstrating the virtue of a hybrid - "state capitalism" - in which the workers get even less and the elite get even more). One thing we know: the sociology departments at Berkeley, Oberlin, Middlebury, or Amherst still have *not* fed a single person
1
Your numbers are way, way, off on the Walton family. Their combined net worth is 170 Billion, not 70 billion. Could be a typo as the number, and the power it infers, is too terrifying to contemplate. Forbes estimates their wealth to be only 145 billion.
Of course, these are all only estimates and are based primarily on their controlling ownership of Wally World stock. The actual amount of their true wealth would be staggering. Bezos and Gates are pikers by comparison.
I am always amazed when the New York Times editorial Board castigates policies that support private investment and that have the effect of raising stock prices in some instances, crying that “investors” are the ones reaping the rewards.
Don’t individual “investors” have mutual fund accounts, IRAs, 401Ks, Employee Stock ownership Plans ( ESOPs) benefit from the price appreciation as well, and isn’t it a better thing that private pension plans ( and some of the public employee pension plans) will be better funded as a result of this action?
Please don’t be so disingenuous when you present these opinions.
14
The Times, even less than the corporate “bosses” they excoriate here, have no crystal ball into the “long-term economic impact of the tax law”. To all of them, like all tax legislation components intended to create general economic benefit, this is all a crapshoot. You proceed from a set of ideological convictions and you take a shot.
The ideological convictions from which just enough legislators proceeded to enact this tax bill are that when you make it easier for business to prosper, everyone benefits as the economy grows, companies must compete for skills and bodies to exploit that growth, and that process organically raises EVERYONE’S compensation. If you don’t believe that this is true, then you shouldn’t be voting Republican. But enough obviously do that Republicans hold undivided federal government as well as two-thirds of state governorships and partisan state legislative chambers.
The ideological convictions of Times editors appear to be that the purpose of for-profit business is to create and sustain a redistribution engine that maximizes economic benefits to our lowest earners, irrespective of any other interest involved; and that the single-minded success of such a purpose wouldn’t damage innovation, risk-taking and the very foundation of our economic dominance in the world. Now, if you don’t believe that, then you have no business voting Democratic. I invite you to reconsider your convictions. Consider becoming a “boss” yourself. Certainly a Republican.
6
The Apple example is entertaining. Even with the new, lower corporate tax rates and with the sweetheart deal to incentivize repatriation of hundreds of billions earned elsewhere (trillions when you consider ALL the corporate behemoths that might repatriate foreign-tanked profits as well), none of them are under any legal obligation to do so. They CHOSE to do so, because they’d rather invest that money here in America than elsewhere, if not for extortionate and globally uncompetitive corporate tax rates – despite the fact that Apple is paying $38 billion for the privilege to do so.
Then, the editors cite the measly $38 billion in windfall taxes that we get from just the Apple repatriation. That doesn’t count the impact of a changed approach of now counting FUTURE profits as U.S. income, and the additional taxes, generated at 21% on that future income, that will accrue to this deal.
It was a good deal for all concerned, and the changed corporate behavior this tax bill has wrought and will continue to impel will super-charge U.S. domestic investment, create millions of new jobs at home, expand our economy dramatically, and immensely benefit workers of ALL classes.
But you have to question what some really mean when they excoriate “greed” – and even the basic purpose of business.
4
Kansas.
1
Dominic:
Parsnips.
Some companies announce plans to give bonuses and raises to workers while they also announce they will downsize in other sectors of their business. And lurking just over the horizon is more automation of labor.
The operative word is “some”. In time we all will come to see how pernicious this version of trickle down economics really is.
11
"Yes, for bosses." True as far as it goes. Also "Yes for managers" and "Yes for line workers" and "Yes for those previously not employed at the firm." I'm against Trump (probably more accurate to say I'm aghast at the thought that a racist cad could become president based on some sort of backlash/protest vote by the ignorant) but lowering the corporate tax rate was something each if the past five presidents talked about. Reagan wanted to. Bush the Sr wanted to. Wm. Clinton said he would. Bush the Lightweight talked about it, and Obama talked about it too. It is more a repatriation than a reduction in taxes. Other than some service companies like consumer banks and consultancies, global companies are.pretty adept at situating profits where they pay the lowest taxes. This can be done by dictate in some instances and more often by transfer pricing. No one at the Times seems to have taken an economics class as their social science general ed requirement - we're all sociologists or poets here - but as much as we enjoy railing against the machine, lowering corporate tax rates is a reasonable thing
7
See, for example, "Trump’s Take on Corporate Tax Rate Could Look Very Much Like Obama’s" by ANDREW ROSS SORKIN New York Times March 27, 2017
1
Title: "Are Corporate Tax Cuts Raising Pay? Yes, for Bosses"
You missed "and for hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers who will have a lot more money in their pockets this year". The logic in this piece is extremely tortured. It's simple- the tax reform gave workers higher wages.
3
In a competition among wealthy egos over who has the most and can throw the snazziest parties there is never enough. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the majority of wealth generated by the tax’s cuts goes to shareholders and upper management, that’s where the most entitled are. The smoke and mirrors aspect are predictable and effective in a society where many are programmed to believe in reality tv and it’s ultimate expression in the con man reality tv president / business man.
6
You didn't really think their 'tinkle-down' economics would help the low class workers. Corporate tax-cuts were always meant for the CEOs, VPs and Directors.
5
Bait and switch? Not really! The reality was there to be seen. Among those realities we had the slow but steady recovery from the disastrous Great Recession; we've had the general stagnation of wages while corporate profits and CEO compensation soared. Now we see the economy recovering across the developed world following the success of countries like Ireland. Yet here in America we fail to see the realities that are corroding us. For example, in the country that spends more than any other on healthcare, we have a flu season that is killing people, and our leaders shrug. Why? With all our great research and manufacturing capacity we cannot make a vaccine against nothing: we must wait until the new culprit virus emerges. But it emerged months ago. And then? All hands to the pumps? No. It's "let's wait until it's profitable to switch from making profitable drug X to making the requisite vaccine." Oh yes, the Free Market solves all problems?? The Trump Tax Give Away is another flu virus the reality of which we seem unable to fathom.
7
No surprises here, may I point out the wealthy and corporations will increase their contributions to the GOP and GOP candidates.
4
Democrats believe in a rising tide. Republicans say they believe in trickle down. The Trump tax cut for the rich is classic trickle down. No one honestly believes it will seriously lift wages or reduce inequality. But then it wasn't intended to.
4
Just to put this editorial in terms most readers will grasp, the top education leader in North Carolina was quoted this week as saying that a top annual salary of $35,000 for public school teachers would be very generous.
19
The cost of living is reasonable in North Carolina. Depsite what the teachers' union would have you believe teaching is not rocket science. And it's a 3/4 of the year job. Teachers have 3 months off to supplement their income.
PaulB67- "Just to put this editorial in terms most readers will grasp, the top education leader in North Carolina was quoted this week as saying that a top annual salary of $35,000 for public school teachers would be very generous."
And the college bound NC students who want to be teachers will move to the progressive states like MA, CT, NJ, VT, CA, NY, etc. where teachers have a salary beyond the poverty level. The brain drain will continue and all the educational gains NC made will be flushed down the toilet. And the ignorant masses will applaud!
2
The corporate tax cut is just another evidence of wide spread legal corruption. Corporations are people, we are told and their money to bribe politicians is concealed as expression of free speech. Now the GOP gives back generously to corporations by stealing from citizens 1.5 trillion dollars in 10 years, looting every household by adding to their debt, about 10000 Dollars per family, if I got the math right. Corporations are people but only if they benefit from that construct. If people would be taxed like corporations we only pay taxes on our profits, on what’s left after all expenses. Instead we have to pay according to our earnings and many at a much higher rate.
Beside fueling the bone fire of corporate greed, the GOP removes environmental and labor protections, ignores the dangers of global climate change, allows unrestricted drilling on the US coast and takes away health insurance, educational opportunities and other benefits.
Democrats need to define their message, the country is pilfered by oligarchs and the future sold out by an incompetent and malicious party. Ignore the Dotard and go after the policies of theft, robbery and destruction.
17
I hope the Democrats who make campaign commercials read this and other similar arguments about tax cuts for businesses and the rich primarily benefiting only the investment class. This should be their primary message to stimulate the non-rich to vote next fall not Trumps's character deficiencies.
26
In November 2009, Lloyd Blankfein said the banks serve a social purpose and "are doing God's work." I guess this enormous tax break for corporations and the richest among us from Donald Trump and the Republicans is God's reward.
5
The Republicans had no interest in supporting the middle class or relieving poverty through taxation policy. They have one aim: please their benefactors, the people who own the GOP. Tax cuts were the quid pro quo for campaign dollars, and they were reminded of that quite openly in Aspen. To believe otherwise is to indulge in wishful thinking.
We are living in a plutocracy, not a democracy. The uber-wealthy have never thought democracy was a good idea. Now, they get to strangle it.
16
All the inequities described in this piece were predicted by everyone from leading economists like Krugman down to talking heads like Scarborough.
The predictable inequities were not only known to so called “policy wonk” and Ayn Rand disciple Paul Ryan and his unprincipled counterpart McConnell, but part of the planning by the GOP to ensure that the massive wealth redistribution begun in the 80s by Regan from the poor and middle class to the wealthy continues apace.
It will be fascinating to see in the 2018 election cycle if the benighted masses among the red state electorate will continue to be transfixed by the next shiny object and vote yet again against their own economic interests and the long term financial vitality of the country.
With the help of Foxy News, Citizens United enabled dark money disinformation campaigns and alt right radio and internet nothing should change.
You know, like in Kansas where the voters returned Governor Brownback to office after his economic “experiment”, which is mimicked by the GOP tax “reform”, gutted the state budget, impacting the most vulnerable, like children needing a decent public education.
13
The phrase is "trickle down" not "gush down". If some benefit, albeit small, does flow to workers, then it is a good thing, Workers, executives and investors will all make better use of the money than the government which doesn't need to build more "bridges to nowhere".
It seems like the current situation is getting dangerously close to most people being in the “you should be lucky you have a job” category-while a chosen few (by birth, luck, or sometimes hard work) are in the “you deserve all the good fortune “ category. When a society devolves to such stark contrast, it is a feudal system - not a democracy!
Why can’t we work as a society to let all people grow and prosper? It isn’t a zero sum game!
15
What almost every comment on the tax cuts is missing is that repatriated foreign assets are actually an illusion. The plot of this story is complicated, but the two cent version is that a company forms a subsidiary in a tax haven, then sells some trivial intellectual property to that sub, let's say for example the IP is the company logo. The company goes about it's business as before. No factories move, no manager moves. But when it sells a product, it pays it's sub a whopper of a fee for the right to use it's own logo. That tranfers the revenue overseas, where it's sheltered from tax. But the costs are still incurred here. Since the cash is overseas, it has to borrow money to fund its operations here. ("Borrowing" in a perverse sense also includes issuing new stock, which will eventually be bought back if and when the funds are repatriated.) So when the government decides to capitulate and allows overseas funds to be returned with little or no tax consequence, all that happen is that the bulk of the money goes to redeeming loans. The cash is annihilated, it disappears. The advantage to the company is that the portion that would have gone to tax is now split between management and the government. So no new jobs, no new factories. Just fat checks for fat cats.
108
Not an illusion because elminating the debt increases the value of the remaining stock. Millions of people are already benefiting via the rising stock market. This includes owners of 401ks, IRAs, as well as pension funds.
1
Yes, and the tax on the domestic borrowing is an expense and so not taxed.
1
Rises in the stock market disproportionately benefit those nearer the top.
2
The trickle-down fairy is alive and well in today’s GOP. My fear is middle-class workers (voters) will be suckered with some small change raises before the 2018 mid-term elections, then hammered when it comes time to do their 2018 income taxes in 2019.
8
From what I read, the majority of companies have given out bonuses rather than pay raises. Nice to get an extra one-time $1,000 in one's wallet, but better to get a raise. Better for the employee but not for the corporation.
14
A $1000 bonus is better than anything the Dems offered. They all voted against the tax cuts. Make them larger and give workers even more money.
No, make them larger and give the workers ALL the tax cuts. The companies won't make any more money if they can't sell any more product. By giving the workers the tax benefits, they will be able to spend more and drive up demand for product. Giving the money to the already wealthy just means they will stick it somewhere the sun doesn't shine.
The Democrats weren't in a position to offer anything because they were frozen out of the legislative process.
1
It is also strengthening management's holds on companies, as they buy back stock from the public, with borrowing that is cheaper than paying dividends, because the US is pinned at the zero lower bound of interest rates.
Wealth concentration has shifted into overdrive under Trump.
6
This last paragraph summarizes the democrats complaint: it's great some workers(a whole lot) are getting raises.... but. "But" is not an argument - it is an excuse for not having participated or voted for the economic boom liberals fear will take place in 2018.
Tell workers who receive bonuses and increased salaries and take home pay that this is really a bad situation; tell middle class 401K owners and retirees they really shouldn't be happy with their burgeoning accounts; and tell the high school grad, white or black, that it is bad for that new plant to open up down the road. A tsunami of economic growth is about to bury the so-called blue wave in 2018 because the argument to take away bonuses, pay increases and investment gains will be like trying to sell spoiled milk to the voters.
Oh, and as a reminder - Obama proposed dropping the corporate tax rate and repatriating overseas dollars too.
5
Is this really a surprise to anyone who reads REAL news? Of course the fat cats will get fatter. And why would companies invest more now, when research, capital investments, and workers salaries and benefits were already tax deductible? The Republicans knew this. They also knew that tax cuts to the lower 90% would result in more spending and an uptick in the economy. They did the tax bill at their billionaire supporters bidding. Because, who can't use an extra billion or so. And then they can get more donations and stay in Congress longer.
7
We all knew it would work this way. GOP disguised their unconscionable tax plan as a gift to middle- and lower-income folks. But those crumbs don’t begin to compare with the gift to the already too-rich.
17
Because corporate tax rates are lowered, corporate profits supposedly should be improved. Those having first dibs at those goodies are the top execs. Why should that surprise anyone? Next in line will be the stockholders. Those in top management usually are large stockholders as well and therefore like to keep those stocks attractive to outside investors. There is correlation! They reward themselves in salary and bonuses because they can. They reward stockholders because they also are also stockholders.
There is no similar correlation between increase in corporate income and lower-echelon wages and salaries. Companies pay what they have to pay to hire whom they need -- no more! No doubt it shall remain that way. If there is too much pressure to raise wages and salaries of those in the lower echelons, the upper echelon simply will address the problem by moving those jobs to a lower wage country. They can and will! Most workers here, barring those in personal service, are in price competition with the lowest-paid equivalent workers in Asia. It is called the global economy!
6
I am enjoying the extra $30 in my paycheck.However, as a 55 year old who has lived with stagnant wages the past ten years, that doesn't fix anything. This new tax bill doesn't fix anything. In my jaded view these giant corporations are handing out bonuses and token pay raises to distract us from where the real money is getting handed out. Thank you for this article. I guess I've become jaded for a reason.
17
Stagent wages mean you need to update your skills, efforts, find a new line of work or all three if you want increased income. Some older workers don't like or won't adapt.
All points well made, but most voters don't get it, and the danger is they'll believe the grifters now in power. In editorials like this, please link to articles detailing the evidence behind your conclusions. It's there. For example one message that Democrats consistently fail to convey is that the economic stimulus is achieved through increasing the turnover of money exchanging hands. It's like infusing blood into someone who's anemic, something we don't necessarily need right now. But there are other arguments for giving tax cuts to people who are otherwise losing ground. When employees are under less stress, they're able to provide for their families. Their children are able to afford more education and the professionalism and productivity of employees increases. This makes us more competitive in a global economy. It also decreases the social costs of mental illness, drug abuse and crime, because people can work with hope for a better future and a life worth living. All of this in turn increases stock value on the foundation of a better economy down to the roots.
Educating your readers in every way about the basis of a sound economy -- and in simple, commonsense terms -- is crucial right now because the upcoming elections will be influenced on where people give credit. Many of us are progressive activists who are making every effort to reach voters, awaken our politicians from slumber and expose those who are grifters for what they are.
4
Knowledge is Power-"All points well made, but most voters don't get it, and the danger is they'll believe the grifters now in power."
How true. I read a recent interview somewhere where those interviewed stated they were better off now under trump than they were under Obama. Not a thing changed in their lives; pay, working conditions, public education quality, access to healthcare, etc. Nothing at all changed yet their perception was that they were better off under trump. It will be a huge uphill battle to change these delusions. Especially with people who have such a tenuous grip on reality.
2
If enough people read the New York Times, we would not be in the trouble we are in today.
2
Even as a long time AT&T shareholder, I knew instantly why AT&T breathlessly announced that they were giving bonuses to workers and crediting Trump's tax law rushed through Congress with almost no vetting, ignoring all the obvious, enormous concerns about the debt (which Republicans furiously scream about but only when Democrats are in office). AT&T's cynical move was designed for one overwhelming purpose: to stroke Donald and his henchmen to approve AT&T's pending merger with Time Warner.
Companies invest in equipment and employees whenever it makes sense, regardless of who is in the Oval Office, based on demand for its products, sales, the need to update equipment to stay competitive and to invent new products. Almost all of these announcements involve financial arrangements that would have occurred anyway.
As an AT&T shareholder, I actually didn't like the merger deal with Time Warner, because the company is going into astounding debt to make the acquisition, in the belief that already immense companies simply must get bigger. But like Republicans, AT&T doesn't worry about debt anymore, just approval for its ambitions.
Until the next time a Democrat gets elected, of course.
15
This is 'tax reform' of, by and for the investor class. It was a startling quick transfer of wealth from the future masses to the present few, based on the worn out theory of trickle down.... it is part of his broad attack on Democracy and a return to feudalism.
The tools are in place, from TV to 'social media' to keep the peasants quiet while they are fleeced...
9
Human history shows us, that you can not cheat and disenfranchise large groups of people without serious consequences. The French and others are well aware of the kinds of horror that occur.
I sincerely hope that the American political system can right itself before we experience horrific outcomes.
7
Interesting article, but it misses the primary reason why the tax bill will not be that meaningful in the long run. The economy is booming. Unemployment is very low from an historical perspective, 4.1%. The fundamental macro economic problem in the country is the distribution of national income where 20% is garnered by 1% of the population. Realize, the lower one's income the greater percentage of that income is used for consumption. Realize also that roughly 67% of GDP (gross domestic product) is consumption. We are under consuming as a nation as the higher one's income above a given level, the lower the percentage of that income is used for consumption. At 4.1% unemployment we should be growing well above 3% as has happened historically, except for 1929 when income distribution as it is today. I don't expect a depression as we've learned something from Lord Keynes, but the 2.6 GDP fourth quarter growth rate is well below what it would be if income distribution were more balanced. There's a lot more to say, but this is enough for the moment.
83
Your analysis ignores the fact that money that the wealthy do not spend on consumption is invested, and so is capital available for business growth and expansion, which in turn increases consumption. Ours is not a feudal economy where wealth is gold and silver locked away in castle vaults, and the wealthy don't roll in their money bins like Scrooge McDuck. It takes huge piles of money to grow businesses that can employ millions of us and the money of the wealthy is put to work creating and expanding those businesses, benefiting everyone through a larger economy.
"But beware the spin: Regardless of what’s in the tax overhaul, businesses have an incentive to raise wages to retain and attract workers because of the tight job market."
Absolutely. And a one time bonus to lower level employees does nothing to raise their annual salaries on which their future benefits are pegged.
Furthermore, if I understand the recent tax reform plan correctly, one of the biggest and under-reported scams consists of tax loopholes: they weren't closed.
During the "nondebate" on the tax bill, rushed through Congress unilaterally with no open hearings, many financial experts noted that the 35% corporate tax rate was actually 21% with the loopholes.
So now that the rate is 21%, and many (if not all) loopholes) remain, it's pretty clear their "effective rate" is even lower.
I could go on and on about other aspects of the law, some of which are going to end up in court, because of their particularly targeted "red state versus blue state" burdens, but suffice it to say, the law tilts totally towards corporations and high wealth individuals.
Less than half the nation owns stocks, which are on a tear because of all the benefits accruing to publicly held corporations.
This is the most lopsided tax legislation I've seen in my lifetime. Remember what President Trump said to his Mar a Lago pals right after the bill's passage: "You all just got a lot richer."
He didn't say that to the servers, cooks, and grounds people at his posh resort.
363
"He didn't say that to the servers, cooks, and grounds people at his posh resort."
Of course not. He didn't have to. Leona Helmsley explained it way back when: "Only little people pay taxes". and it's still true today.
32
The deal is corporations will write off their one time bonuses against their earnings, therefore they will lower their taxable income. Do you get that? They will allow the government to pay a good part of the bonuses they are handing out to their employees....Not raise wages or any costly benefits.....
2
Great point: the loopholes were not closed.
Worse: the democrats should have been talking about the need to close the loopholes all the time.
The fact that they did not, tells me that it is due to political incompetence, or that they too are beholden to the tax lobby.
3
I have nothing against people making money but that corporate tax cut should have been directly tied to significant wage increases and people like me in the lower tax brackets should have been given an equivalent break. My net pay is less under this new law so I am not reaping any benefits.
119
Do you pay equivilent taxes? If not why should you get an equivilent pay raise?Try inceasing your marketability rather than just expecting for nothing.
Eventually maybe we could bring back slavery since it’s “survival of the fittest” at this point.
I hear that Trump is going to start deporting any “loser” who is not a CEO.
That would be the next logical step I guess.
1
With all the share buybacks, companies are rewarding their top managers via stock options (or restricted shares), which of course will rise significantly in price over time. I'd bet it's a small percentage of companies that offer stock options broadly to their entire workforce. And so it goes.......
59
With the stock market at record highs it quite possible that many of the stock options granted to executives will be worth less on their exercise date. Not enough to reduce inequality but a bright side to the inevitable downturn.
2
And all those CEOs will implore their rank and file workers to "continuous improvement" and "driving growth"... without ever intending, not once, to share any of it with those workers.
5
Most large companie have employee stock ownership programs. Stock can be purchased through payroll deductions and employess get a discount typically 15% from market price.
Over the last 35 years the share of our total national revenue going to wages and salaries has dropped from 70% to 56%. The share captured by investors has risen from 30% to 44%.
The Republican tax deform should be judged by how it moves those numbers.
277
It seems that the Times is only happy with people's misery not their successes, unless it's in the media or entertainment. And remember how you pointed out that salaried professionals weren't getting a tax break in many states? Then why are you fretting about an increase in tax revenue (which you love), through salary increases?
1
The Republican tax "deform" can do nothing to prevent jobs from being exported abroad, to produce goods and services then sold in the US. If goods can be loaded on a container ship or services shipped in via the internet, then US employees are in direct competition with the lowest paid substitutes in Asia, and they abound. It does not stop with factory workers and the least easily replaced clerical workers. It can apply as well to engineers, accountants, back office attorneys, college professors who lecture online -- and be careful MDs! With modern internet technology, it can apply to you as well. There already are physicians and surgeons in this country treating patients thousands of miles away via internet. Why not from Mumbai or Beijing?
4