Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

[jerphisch]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

Or, how about we acknowledge that when corporations get tax cuts, or any money for that matter, they're not going to use it for workers. Which is the whole ****ing point anyway.

In other words. Republicans lied. Again.

Of course they did, but for your reply to be $6B to workers and $170B to stock buy backs you are too. That's some Fox level reporting there.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

Of course they did, but for your reply to be $6B to workers and $170B to stock buy backs you are too. That's some Fox level reporting there.

I guess I need to read the articles for you.

But the buying back of shares is also at record levels.

Almost 100 American corporations have trumpeted such plans in the past month. American companies have announced more than $178 billion in planned buybacks — the largest amount unveiled in a single quarter, according to Birinyi Associates, a market research firm.

Such purchases reduce a company’s total number of outstanding shares, giving each remaining share a slightly bigger piece of the profit pie.

Cisco said this month that in response to the tax package, it would bring back to the United States $67 billion of overseas cash, using $25 billion to finance additional share repurchases. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, authorized up to $8.6 billion in stock purchases. PepsiCo announced a fresh $15 billion in planned buybacks. Chip gear maker Applied Materials disclosed plans for a $6 billion program to buy shares. Late last month, home improvement retailer Lowe’s unveiled plans for $5 billion in purchases.

On Monday, Mr. Buffett said on CNBC that Berkshire might be open to buy some of its shares. The remarks helped send Berkshire’s stock — and the broader market — higher.

More buybacks are almost certainly on the way. UBS analysts covering Apple said the iPhone maker might authorize another $30 billion in share purchases when it reports its next quarterly earnings in April. That would be on top of the $30 billion it already spends each year to buy back its shares.

“I’m expecting buybacks to get to a record for 2018,” said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst with S.&P. Dow Jones Indices. “And if I’m disappointed, there’s a lot of people with me.”

[jerphisch]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

I guess I need to read the articles for you.

But none of that addresses what would have happened without the tax cuts. Mature companies use profits to buy back stock, this is not news. If you can't quantify what is specifically due to the tax cut and not normal course of business for profitable companies with excess cash, you can't make a comparison.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

But none of that addresses what would have happened without the tax cuts. Mature companies use profits to buy back stock, this is not news. If you can't quantify what is specifically due to the tax cut and not normal course of business for profitable companies with excess cash, you can't make a comparison.

Yes it does.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

The thing about buybacks is it's like a leveraged savings account for corporations. If they see growth on the horizon, they might buy back now freeing up more shares to sell later when they need to raise capital. The money is repatriated. That's good. It's not good that they didn't pay their fair share, but that money is eventually going to be used.

[unofan]

I disagree on the bonuses, these have been one time across the board bonuses that you typically don't see.

That's the PR spin, for sure. I'm guessing many of them were going to happen anyway, and the companies used the tax law to get some extra p.r. out of it, especially those that more quietly cut hundreds of other jobs at the same time.

[jerphisch]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

Yes it does.

Then quantify it, what portion of the $170B would not have happened if not for the tax cut. Give a number that you can back up with facts linking it directly to the tax cut.

[unofan]

Then quantify it, what portion of the $170B would not have happened if not for the tax cut. Give a number that you can back up with facts linking it directly to the tax cut.

How about you give a number that you can back up with facts linking these piddly bonuses to the tax cut. You seem just add certain those wouldn't have happened without it.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

I think the burden of proof is more on the Republicans to show that this tax scam had any short term benefit (or will have any long term benefit). They're the ones adding 1.5 trillion to the deficit during a non-recession because... (*crickets*).

Obviously you can try and dig deeper like Jerp and ask whether this would've happened anyhow or if there are record buy backs etc. but (and to be fair Jerp pointed this out) big picture wise there isn't a lot of evidence that this is all that beneficial to the average person. That said I agree that people probably shouldn't just repeat talking points without evidence to back it. Obviously I would assume that they weren't all lying about the fact that it'd mostly be used for buy backs and that all the projections of that weren't wrong but I don't know if there's any evidence of that yet.

[St. Clown]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

I can safely say that my employer made some news by announcing its change so that the lowest paid employees are now receiving $15/hour, up about 12% from the prior corporate minimum; this was done to use the corporate excitement around the tax cuts. But then a large chunk of the company saw frozen wages. Why is that? Two reasons: 1) Golden parachute payouts from 2016 and 2017 due to disgraced community banking chief and CEO, and 2) Fed gov't stating that we cannot grow our customer base outside of two specific areas.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

I can safely say that my employer made some news by announcing its change so that the lowest paid employees are now receiving $15/hour, up about 12% from the prior corporate minimum; this was done to use the corporate excitement around the tax cuts. But then a large chunk of the company saw frozen wages. Why is that? Two reasons: 1) Golden parachute payouts from 2016 and 2017 due to disgraced community banking chief and CEO, and 2) Fed gov't stating that we cannot grow our customer base outside of two specific areas.

I think I can safely guess where you work

[jerphisch]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

How about you give a number that you can back up with facts linking these piddly bonuses to the tax cut. You seem just add certain those wouldn't have happened without it.

Large companies don't give across the board bonuses on a regular basis. I am 100% certain they wouldn't have happened. They also didn't necessarily happen out of the goodness of the companies heart. A lot of the companies that gave them did it specifically to get good PR for Trump because they wanted something in return from the Govt. There are plenty of reasons to hate everything about the tax cut, $170B vs $6B isn't one of them.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 6.0: Nope, it only found woven strands

Large companies don't give across the board bonuses on a regular basis. I am 100% certain they wouldn't have happened. They also didn't necessarily happen out of the goodness of the companies heart. A lot of the companies that gave them did it specifically to get good PR for Trump because they wanted something in return from the Govt. There are plenty of reasons to hate everything about the tax cut, $170B vs $6B isn't one of them.

Yeah, it is. You don't get to choose why I hate something. I do. And there is a lot to hate about those numbers. Cause even if they're totally wrong we know those numbers are nowhere near close to each other.

[BassAle]

I can safely say that my employer made some news by announcing its change so that the lowest paid employees are now receiving $15/hour, up about 12% from the prior corporate minimum; this was done to use the corporate excitement around the tax cuts. But then a large chunk of the company saw frozen wages. Why is that? Two reasons: 1) Golden parachute payouts from 2016 and 2017 due to disgraced community banking chief and CEO, and 2) Fed gov't stating that we cannot grow our customer base outside of two specific areas.

Wages were already going up. My company raised the wages of the people cleaning toilets and emptying my trash to a $15 starting wage a few years ago.

[trixR4kids]

Wages were already going up. My company raised the wages of the people cleaning toilets and emptying my trash to a $15 starting wage a few years ago.

Do you live in Seattle or some other major city? Because I don’t think wages are going up in most locales.