New Tax Bill Benefits

[Raider5678]

On December 22nd 2017 the current in office Potus passed a major piece of legislation relating to taxes. It included massive tax cuts and many people predicted that this tax bill would result in businesses making much more money and the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer.

However, regarding benefits to lower-income people.

https://www.majoritywhip.gov/TaxReformWorks?utm_source=Speaker.gov+Master+List&utm_campaign=b998d88a3d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e173f5a25-b998d88a3d-157378765

This link has every single source located at the top, just click the company and you'll get the source.

 

As much as you may disagree with the bill, it is helping lower-income people across the country.

Massive companies have raised the minimum wage to $15 or above(Look at the link I provided.) And that's a minimum.  Additionally, from the list, I've gotten over 30 companies(including the previous ones) that have raised their minimum wage to $15 or above. These companies include companies like PNC Bank, Capital One, Wells Fargo, and Associated Bank.

Additionally, literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been donated to lower-income communities by several companies, like M.B. Financial which donated 7.5 million to the lower income communities it operates in. Or PNC donations of 200 million to the PNC Foundation which helps with education.

Multi Thousand dollar bonuses to every employee's retirement plan below senior rank is another common benefit.

Apple has said it plans to hire 20,000 new employees following the tax cuts and spend $30 billion in the United States over the next five years.

Fed Ex has put 1.5 billion into its employee's retirement pensions overall, making it one of the best retirement programs in the country.

 

 

Hundreds of millions of dollars in employee pay has been issued since December 22nd in light of the new tax bill.

Tens of billions of dollars have been paid out in benefits and donations.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in pension increases have been made.

And millions of new jobs have been promised over a 5 year period.

 

 

This tax bill was said to be the apocalypse by some.

I'm not sure how much longer we can survive this apocalypse.....

 

 

 

Also, this thread was mainly made to just point out there have been benefits with the tax bill. I completely and 100% fully understand the downsides, it does benefit the rich. However, I wanted to talk about the current benefits to the poor. And while one time donations are one time, increases in minimum wage, increased pension plans, better 401k retirement deals, and new jobs(shaky for this one) are much more permanent. 

I'm gonna get railed for this.

 

 

Edit: Looking at news articles, many are saying that only 2% of workers in America said they received any benefit, meaning that it was a failure. 

Just to address this before it goes into the comments this bill is just over a month old. The tax decreases won't even be felt until 2019, let alone in just a month. 

If they've paid out 2% of workers benefits in the promise of tax cuts alone, it's mostly going to be companies who have the extra cash on hand, at the moment, and can afford to operate as such until 2019 when they make up entirely for lost benefits. So, massive companies. 

Just to note, I am not saying these benefits are all the benefits that will appear, this is around 2%. But common sense says that if we're seeing benefits before it's actually gone into effect, we'll see benefits after it has gone into effect, and the months leading to it. 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

The primary problem is the myopic focus of those links. It's like if I told you how great direct sunlight is on your skin due to all of the vitamin D it helps produce, but ignored the sun burn and blistering and peeling and future melenomas from skin cancer it also produces... but, HEY!! You're getting more vitamin D, so it's pure WIN!!

Sorry, nope.

The page you cite (majority GOP leader, no bias there) focuses solely on taxes within a narrow time slice and ignores future impact and also ignores the other programs and benefits being cut or increased in cost.

When you take a more complete view and account for NET benefits and costs (taxes PLUS government support and subsidies and related programs which these lower income families primarily rely on to survive) and when you account for what will happen in a few years when the taxes expire (net increase on taxes for poor folks plus a failure to scale with actual inflation... meaning every single dollar they have is worth less than it is today), it seems obvious this was not a bill designed to help the lower income and middle class. It's a bald talking point that falls flat with even remedial scrutiny.

We all want to help the middle and lower class lift themselves up, but the tax bill is not that. If it was, we should've just focused there... made the tax cuts on the lower classes permanent instead of just those on corporations... should have increased spending on the programs they rely on to survive... instead of slashing them using our deficit and debt... which this tax bill blew up by $1.5 TRILLION... to justify cutting those programs.

You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to suggest this bill was intended to help the lower and middle classes. If that were the case, then surely they could have done something more direct and with higher ROI... instead of using this rube-goldberg "give it to the corporations and kinda sorta hope some of it maybe someday will a little bit trickle down" nonsense we actually see.

More below:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/jct-estimates-final-gop-tax-bill-skewed-to-top-hurts-many-low-and-middle-income

Quote

The final tax bill that the House and Senate will vote on this week provides by far the largest benefits to high-income people, and many middle- and lower-income households would end up worse off, new Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates show <...> By 2027, when many of its provisions would have expired, those at the top would still get large tax cuts, but every income group below $75,000 would face tax increases, on average

<...>

Repealing the individual mandate would leave millions more people uninsured and raise premiums for millions more <...> [The bill] Reduces the after-tax incomes of households with incomes below $30,000, on average, while doing virtually nothing for those with incomes between $30,000 and $40,000. <...> Households with incomes below $30,000 would face tax increases, on average

<...>

even these figures likely understate the degree to which the bill would leave many families worse off. Despite raising taxes on millions of Americans, the bill adds $1.5 trillion to deficits over ten years. Congressional Republicans are already saying they will seek to pay for their tax cuts next year by cutting an array of programs that serve low- and middle-income families, such as food assistance and possibly health care. When policymakers eventually offset the costs of these deficit-financed tax cuts, the same low- and middle-income families that see little initial benefit — or even face tax increases — from the bill would therefore likely bear much of the burden in the form of cuts in programs on which they rely, while high-income households would likely remain large net winners. 

 

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

As much as you may disagree with the bill, it is helping lower-income people across the country.

Massive companies have raised the minimum wage to $15 or above(Look at the link I provided.) And that's a minimum.

Additionally, from the list, I've gotten over 30 companies(including the previous ones) that have raised their minimum wage to $15 or above. These companies include companies like PNC Bank, Capital One, Wells Fargo, and Associated Bank.

Several of these companies have admitted that this has to do with competing for workers, and is independent of the tax cut. Wage pressure is what you expect when unemployment is low.

Quote

 

Additionally, literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been donated to lower-income communities by several companies, like M.B. Financial which donated 7.5 million to the lower income communities it operates in. Or PNC donations of 200 million to the PNC Foundation which helps with education.

Is this the first time they have donated to these charities?

But it's true that the tax cuts may be partly responsible — for the timing (and amount). You get a bigger deduction when the tax rate is 35% than when it is 20%. 

Quote

Multi Thousand dollar bonuses to every employee's retirement plan below senior rank is another common benefit.

As well as a bunch of layoffs. As with the tax advantage of donations and timing, these bonuses also cost less if they occurred in 2017, because compensation reduces taxable income, and bonuses are not a new thought, so it's tenuous to claim bonuses were caused by the tax cut.

And these bonuses have been awarded before the tax cuts have come into effect. They are paid out of already-existing profits. 

Quote

Apple has said it plans to hire 20,000 new employees following the tax cuts and spend $30 billion in the United States over the next five years.

How is this attributable to the tax cuts? What is there other than coincidence?

Quote

Fed Ex has put 1.5 billion into its employee's retirement pensions overall, making it one of the best retirement programs in the country.

How is this attributable to the tax cuts? What is there other than coincidence? 

Quote

 Also, this thread was mainly made to just point out there have been benefits with the tax bill. 

Correlation is not causality

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Several of these companies have admitted that this has to do with competing for workers, and is independent of the tax cut. Wage pressure is what you expect when unemployment is low.

 

I didn't see that. Can you link it? 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is this the first time they have donated to these charities?

 

No. But they said due to the promise of tax cuts they're donating the money.

Is this bad?

Edited January 30, 2018 by Raider5678

[waitforufo]

If you would just drop your envy of the "rich" your life would be a lot happier.  Try practicing saying "well good for them" any time you hear that good fortune befalls anyone.  Do this regardless of their economic situation, their political persuasion, race, creed, orientation,  etc.  You will find it very freeing to be free of envy.

Of course the tax bill has things in it that you like.  Why would you think otherwise.  Donald Trump along with congress is trying to make the country a better place.  I'm sure it pains you to acknowledge that for Trump, but it's nice to see a start.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

But it's true that the tax cuts may be partly responsible — for the timing (and amount). You get a bigger deduction when the tax rate is 35% than when it is 20%. 

 

Fair enough.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

As well as a bunch of layoffs. As with the tax advantage of donations and timing, these bonuses also cost less if they occurred in 2017, because compensation reduces taxable income, and bonuses are not a new thought.

1

So, this tax bill has resulted in layoffs?

Again, if you could link this I'd appreciate that.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

And these bonuses have been awarded before the tax cuts have come into effect. They are paid out of already-existing profits. 

 

Yeah. And I mentioned that.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

How is this attributable to the tax cuts? What is there other than coincidence?

How is this attributable to the tax cuts? What is there other than coincidence? 

Correlation is not causality

 

If you look at the link I've posted they show several sources for them.

Apple specifically said it was because of tax cuts and so did FedEx.

Now sure we can just deny everything they say as a lie, but then you can't believe anything.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

The primary problem is the myopic focus of those links. It's like if I told you how great direct sunlight is on your skin due to all of the vitamin D it helps produce, but ignored the sun burn and blistering and peeling and future melenomas from skin cancer it also produces... but, HEY!! You're getting more vitamin D, so it's pure WIN!!

2

Have you ever heard the term don't throw out the baby with the bathwater?

I've also acknowledged that there are downsides if you read the entire post. I made an entire section that I realize there are massive downsides to this. If you read the entire post.

Did I mention I made a section about the massive downsides and that I'm fully aware of them?

 

Additionally, most links are myopic. They virtually always pick a side, they very rarely go both. So in that essence, should I throw out any link that leads to a particular side?

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/jct-estimates-final-gop-tax-bill-skewed-to-top-hurts-many-low-and-middle-income

 

This can be said to literally everything.

Rich and poor is not the same thing(I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about the concept.)

If there is a millionaire who makes $1,000,000 a year and a middle-class man who makes 20k per year, and we cut both of their taxes by 3%, the millionaire benefits the most.

However to say the middle-class man doesn't benefit at all because the millionaire makes more money is a fallacy.

The millionaire will save 30k, and the middle-class man saves 600. They've both saved 3%, but we can then say that the millionaire has received 98% of the benefits, while the middle-class man is left with only 2%. 

Yes, the millionaire will benefit more, but that's relative to how much money he makes. Absolute numbers are not as accurate as percentage points, but we're doing gymnastics with absolute numbers, and then turning them into percentage points. The data becomes more extreme looking, but when you break it down ultimately it is relative.

 

However, I do understand what the link is trying to convey and I do agree with it. I'm just pointing out a lot of these charts are skewed.

 

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

We all want to help the middle and lower class lift themselves up, but the tax bill is not that. If it was, we should've just focused there... made the tax cuts on the lower classes permanent instead of just those on corporations... should have increased spending on the programs they rely on to survive... instead of slashing them using our deficit and debt... which this tax bill blew up by $1.5 TRILLION... to justify cutting those programs.

 

Republicans have said they have all intentions to renew the tax cuts in 2025. 

Another thing you have to note is that whether they're "permanent" or not, they can, at any time, be changed by whoever is in office.

They don't need to wait until 2025 to renew them, they don't need to wait till 2025 to modify the bill.

If Democrats can win the midterm elections, they can fully reverse this bill and change it. They don't need to wait.

This is the beauty of legislation and democracy. 

 

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

We all want to help the middle and lower class lift themselves up, but the tax bill is not that. If it was, we should've just focused there... made the tax cuts on the lower classes permanent instead of just those on corporations... should have increased spending on the programs they rely on to survive... instead of slashing them using our deficit and debt... which this tax bill blew up by $1.5 TRILLION... to justify cutting those programs.

 

Very much agreed.

A well-made argument, by the way, it wasn't just a rant like I was expecting. +1

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

If you would just drop your envy of the "rich" your life would be a lot happier.

Would you please, for the love of Thor, stop with this asinine talking point? I benefit from this tax cut more than most. I can still see the faults and honesty discuss where the benefits disproportionately fall.

[dimreepr]

22 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

If you would just drop your envy of the "rich" your life would be a lot happier.

 

That's the mantra of the wealthy in fear of losing their advantage:

“He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature.”― Socrates

[Raider5678]

Just now, dimreepr said:

That's the mantra of the wealthy in fear of losing their advantage:

“He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature.”― Socrates

I, for one, don't believe money brings happiness. But that's just me. A poor guy whos mantra doesn't matter.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I, for one, don't believe money brings happiness. But that's just me. A poor guy whos mantra doesn't matter.

Money is not wealth unless you think a poor guys mantra doesn't count...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

 So, this tax bill has resulted in layoffs?

There have been announce layoffs. Whether it is caused by the tax cuts is not clear to me. And companies were far quieter about the layoffs than they were about the bonuses

https://www.axios.com/companies-are-announcing-layoffs-alongside-1516906209-24d15930-e029-4bc6-b3e4-b1d2c6074ab2.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wal-mart-has-announced-thousands-of-layoffs-since-publicizing-bonuses-and-benefits-expansion-2018-01-30

https://thinkprogress.org/companies-gop-tax-bonuses-layoffs-fdf07fdf90d2/

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

 Apple specifically said it was because of tax cuts and so did FedEx.

Apple's press release is cagey, and I didn't see specific wording saying it was due to the tax cut.

FedEx is similarly careful in its wording. They didn't say they would hire because of the cuts, but if the cuts boost GDP and demand goes up as a result. 

 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I didn't see that. Can you link it? 

Can't find the article I had read, but it was also pointed out that some companies (Target and JP Morgan, I think) raised wages several months earlier, well before the tax hike was in the works. Plus the fact that several states have implemented an increase in their minimum wage anyway, so these companies would be increasing wages eventually.

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

There have been announce layoffs. Whether it is caused by the tax cuts is not clear to me. And companies were far quieter about the layoffs than they were about the bonuses

https://www.axios.com/companies-are-announcing-layoffs-alongside-1516906209-24d15930-e029-4bc6-b3e4-b1d2c6074ab2.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wal-mart-has-announced-thousands-of-layoffs-since-publicizing-bonuses-and-benefits-expansion-2018-01-30

https://thinkprogress.org/companies-gop-tax-bonuses-layoffs-fdf07fdf90d2/

Apple's press release is cagey, and I didn't see specific wording saying it was due to the tax cut.

FedEx is similarly careful in its wording. They didn't say they would hire because of the cuts, but if the cuts boost GDP and demand goes up as a result. 

 

Can't find the article I had read, but it was also pointed out that some companies (Target and JP Morgan, I think) raised wages several months earlier, well before the tax hike was in the works. Plus the fact that several states have implemented an increase in their minimum wage anyway, so these companies would be increasing wages eventually.

2

Fair enough. 

 

Also, for reference, JP Morgan just announced the increases last Tuesday, so it probably wasn't them that said it several months ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/jpmorgan-to-raise-pay-hire-staff-in-20-billion-investment-push.html

 

 

As for Wal-mart according to them, it's for efficiency purposes. Which, I'm told, is another way of saying firing bad workers. I don't know if there's any truth in the statement, but that's what I'm told. I doubt it, but just felt like mentioning that.

Additionally, this link covers the layoffs and bonuses.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wal-mart-has-announced-thousands-of-layoffs-since-publicizing-bonuses-and-benefits-expansion-2018-01-30

[iNow]

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/trump-tax-cuts-companies-raises-bonuses/549116/

Quote

Contrary to companies’ stated reasoning, many of those wage increases and bonuses would have happened anyway, it seems, given how low the unemployment rate is right now. Though wage growth has been in a long-term slump, paychecks are finally rising as the jobless rate has fallen below 5 percent and stayed there, with earnings growing the fastest for the lowest-wage workers. Plus, 18 states are raising their minimum wages in 2018, requiring businesses to pay out an estimated $5 billion more to 4.5 million workers.

Given those dynamics, businesses are likely using the tax cuts in part as a way to advertise pay increases that were already planned and to curry favor with the Trump administration and Republicans on the Hill. To wit: Wells Fargo waffled onwhether its pay increases had anything to do with tax reform, first saying they did not and then correcting the record and saying they did. “Minimum pay is a topic that we continue to review as part of our efforts to attract and retain talent, and we have been on a path to increasing the minimum hourly rate,” a spokesman told The Los Angeles Times.

<...>

Of course, it would have been possible to construct a tax plan that would have both cut the corporate income tax and ensured that workers earned more. Pairing the former with an increase in the federal minimum wage and mandatory paid leave for parents would have done so, for instance. Instead, Congress is leaving it up to businesses to benefit workers as they see fit.  

 

Short answer: Some companies will translate the tax cuts into benefits for workers. Some companies will move forward with existing business plans, but market themselves in ways to help headlines and connections with regulatory officials in governments. Others will just pocket the money or pay out larger incentives to executives.

Hopefully, more workers are helped, but if helping workers was our goal (as is being suggested both implicitly and explicitly here and elsewhere), then this was a really dumb and unnecessarily round-about way of doing it.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/trump-tax-cuts-companies-raises-bonuses/549116/

 

 

Great.

Now both sides can join the #fakenews #lies  campaign.

 

No offense to you iNow.

 

However, as soon as an article says "People A said this, but we believe B, so People A are lying, It's actually because of B. "

That I begin to lose trust in it. In this case, the first sentence quoted.

 

Additionally, the article quotes "dynamics" like it explains everything.

Not to be rude, but what does that even mean? What historical reference does it refer to? Where does this happen? They just kinda said it's not because of Tax Cut's, it's because of low unemployment rate. Then that was correlated because of dynamics. How? I'm sure there's an explanation, but still.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 Also, for reference, JP Morgan just announced the increases last Tuesday, so it probably wasn't them that said it several months ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/jpmorgan-to-raise-pay-hire-staff-in-20-billion-investment-push.html

 

They also announced one in July 2016

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/banking/article89120732.html

Bank of America announced a year ago (to $15)

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/banking/bank-watch-blog/article119132898.html

Wells Fargo raised to $13.50 a year ago

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/05/investing/wells-fargo-raises-minimum-pay/index.html

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm sure there's an explanation, but still.

Economics 101

https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/jfloyd/modules/sadl.html

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Economics 101

http://www.businessinsider.com/low-unemployment-wage-increases-gig-economy-2017-5

Sorry, nope.

Not according to Economics 102.

 

If that's not enough, more history.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/07/business/wages-versus-unemployment.html

http://prospect.org/article/low-unemployment-doesnt-increase-wages-it-used

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-wages-stagnant-low-unemployment-20171208-story.html

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2014/december/are-wages-and-the-unemployment-rate-correlated

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/18/real-wages-fall-despite-low-levels-of-unemployment

 

 

Again, not to be rude, but they have to do better then saying "dynamics"

Especially when these dynamics are extremely complicated.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

Until some time passes it will be difficult to say definitively that the most recent taxes cuts are positive or negative. The Administration own stated goal to offset the deficit increases is GDP of 4% annually. So we can see if that metric in met. 

We have seen rounds of tax cuts over the decades. Taxes prior to the changes were already lower than the average going back to WW2. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts didn't improve anything. Average pay has continued to be flat while corporate profits and productivity grew. With a few years of Reagan and Bush's tax cuts we experienced recessions. So history doesn't seem to indicate that tax cuts help average workers. 

[CharonY]

Quote

Not according to Economics 102.

 

 

Actually your link indicates that wages still go up. It just does not happen in gig-jobs which will depress the averages. That is fairly consistent with what has been described by iNow and swansont.

Edited January 30, 2018 by CharonY

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Sorry, nope.

sigh...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

sigh...

The links I clicked all agreed wages went up when unemployment went down, but were discussing the reasons why the growth is slower than in the past. So it's not even that the links agreed with what was believed.

Wages went up when there was no tax cut, so there's no reason to believe that new wage increases have gone up because of it. But hey, believe what they announce. It's not like this president can be easily swayed by flattery or ego-stroking, or holds petty grudges to people/entities who fail to do this.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 

Actually your link indicates that wages still go up. It just does not happen in gig-jobs which will depress the averages. That is fairly consistent with what has been described by iNow and swansont.

But in the past, they went up 30%, and in today's time, the average was only 1.9%.

My question now is do gig jobs have the ability to suppress the average that much?

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

But in the past, they went up 30%, and in today's time, the average was only 1.9%.

My question now is do gig jobs have the ability to suppress the average that much?

I do not believe that age makes a person smarter. However when it comes to long standing Political talking points time provides lots of experience. You are in highschool. You have not lived through the execution of these thing. None of this is new. Since I very first started following politics I have heard Republicans say we need lower taxes. Election cycle after Election cycle. When the economy is bad Republicans say we need a tax cut. When the economy is good Republicans say we need a tax cuts. No matter what the issue or environment Republicans always want tax cuts; always.

Republicans have been in power before. Republicans have cut taxes before. All this has been done before. It doesn't wirk. Go back and look at annual deficits under Reagan and Bush 41, look at GDP and job Creation then compare it to Clinton. Do the same for Bush and Obama. Tax cuts have no lasting positive impact. 

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

But in the past, they went up 30%, and in today's time, the average was only 1.9%.

My question now is do gig jobs have the ability to suppress the average that much?

That is what your link describes. Also note that Fall/Winter 2016 the growth was >3% (see US CPS statistics). So if there are any wage gains specifically due to the tax reform, they do not seem to have manifested yet.

[Ten oz]

We had Tax cuts in 1981,1986 , 2001, and 2003. Below are charts showing GDP, Unemployment, annual budget deficit, and the average hourly wage through the periods of tax cuts to today.