Just heard that another corporation, due to the changes in the tax laws, is passing the benefits on to their employees. Does this sound logical? Because I would think that once the corp boosted your pay or gave you a bonus, the corp would not have to pay taxes on that money. My brother-in-law likes to say “I understand cash, but I don’t get money”. I’m with him.
Unemployment is low and difficult to retain workers, some of this is a attempt not to lose employees/attract employees in a way that works for them due to the extra cash they now have.
Also the government may make more money on payroll and income taxes on the individuals then on the corporation, especially since the corporation can deduct expenses for it’s existence and needs and a person can not and other games they can play that a person can not.
- There have been many more bonuses than there have been actual pay raises, and I would be surprised if said bonuses would be better for the employees than an actual raise in the long run.
- Many times these bonuses have been much more limited then initially reported.
- In more than one case the bonuses were in the press release, but layoffs that accompanied them weren’t.
- Only a fraction of the tax benefits are being passed on to the employees.
When it comes to PR, this is good business.
I’m unclear as to what the question is.
You work about 2000 hours a year. a $0.50 an hour raise gets you $1000 a year.
A one time bonus, not so much. And a one time bonus tends to be spent less usefully than a raise.
Yeah, I had someone gloating about the $1000 bonus from Wal-Mart. They didn’t seem to understand that that only went to people with 20 years. Most people were getting much much less.
Yeah, the bonuses and raises don’t do you much good if you are out of a job
It is depressing that people are so easily misled.
And everyone was getting much much less before the bonuses were announced.
Not everyone-Some were getting little or no less since they didn’t qualify for bonuses, and a lot were getting much less after they were laid off.
don’t know about much much, maybe just less.
If you think you are getting $1000, and you get $200 or less, then you got much, much less than you thought you would.
If you get $200, then that is just more, not much more, certainly not much, much more.
It’s nice, but it doesn’t change things to where you can suddenly make ends meet when you couldn’t before.
And then there are the 10k workers who are getting even less than that, they are losing their jobs.
True - I didn’t phrase my response as clearly as I should’ve. My point is that nobody (other than those laid off) is getting less before the bonuses, even if the bonuses are only given to a small percentage of employees. That’s what I meant (although not, clearly, what I said).
Do you think the layoffs were DUE to the tax changes, or that they would’ve happened anyway?
I don’t know the answer to this (well, I know what I think), but to combine the two into a single event, as if the companies awarding bonuses offset those bonuses by laying off employees seems a little too nicely-wrapped. (They certainly DID “wrap” those two events together for PR reasons, but I’m talking about financial reasons.)
True, but before bonuses were announced, you thought you were getting $0; to get $200 is much, much more than you would’ve thought.
And I agree with you about the layoffs (see my post above, which I must’ve written at the same time as yours).
And some are getting 0. I haven’t seen the break down exactly, but shorter term employees aren’t going to get anything.
And to say that it is becuase of the taxcuts means it is hard to explain this.
I know. But they weren’t getting anything extra BEFORE the bonuses were announced, either. They’re not getting less than they were. In fact, they’re getting more because in addition to bonuses, WalMart is also increasing their minimum wage to $11 for all hourly workers. (Cite) Sure, in some states or cities, the minimum wage is already at or above $11, so it’s a little disingenuous to say they’re raising everyone’s starting wage, when some were probably already legally obligated to be at or above $11, but again, they’re helping SOME employees and not hurting those that are already making $11. (Again, excepting those employees who are laid off.)
It doesn’t make sense to say that the bonuses (or wage increases) aren’t adequate or enough because not everyone gets them or because they aren’t enough money to make ends meet. Some people are still getting extra money, and those that aren’t, aren’t having any money taken AWAY from them. It’s like lambasting a billionaire who gives $500,000 to charity for not giving ENOUGH. They aren’t obligated to give anything at all.
The article is from 2016; that doesn’t really have any bearing (other than to note that WalMart has given bonuses in the past and the number of employees receiving those bonuses has risen steadily). How does that compare to the bonuses given out this year, (whether or not they are due to the tax cut)? Did the number double this year? Did the amount double this year? Or did it just continue in the same pattern as cited in the article? I’m not under the illusion WalMart has never given bonuses before.
(I don’t have the answers; I couldn’t find similar figures for 2018.)
Edited to add: And as far as bonuses + wage increases + paternity / maternity leave increases + adoption credits being used to offset news of layoffs from a PR perspective, well, that’s marketing. You could argue that WalMart is “paying” for the marketing through the increases they’re giving. And they’re not the first company, tax cuts or not, to package the good with the bad.
I certainly am not saying that a couple extra dollars are not welcome. I’m just saying that the bonuses were not because of the tax cut. It was not a matter that Wal-Mart couldn’t have afforded to give these bonuses, but now that they have the tax cut, they suddenly can, and that’s why they are giving it. That’s the PR side that is pretty damn cynical, if you ask me.
They give the bonuses and raises because they need employees (for now), and if they don’t, then those employees will go somewhere else that does pay better. As can be seen, walmart has not loyalty to its employees, and has no problem laying off thousands to save money.
In fact, I have no idea how the numbers work out, but you could even point out that the cost savings that walmart got from firing ten thousand workers is what gave them the money to afford to be able to give raises and bonuses. It may have covered it entirely, or it may just be a subsidy, but yeah, some of the money that those unemployed works were getting is what is going to the workers getting raises and bonuses.
IMHO, neither layoffs salary increase/bonuses were due to tax law changes. That was just a convenient timing PR wrapper to put them in.
As kanicbird said in Post #2, low unemployment & the lack of workers is driving a large part of the pay increase. How much of that directly impacted the layoffs is only something their senior accountants/management know.
Moved to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
And raises are better for another reason. Say you are making $100K and get a 5% raise in year one - to $105,000. A 5% raise the next year get you up to $110,250, $250 more than two 5% bonuses.
I was working when this bonus stuff started for average people. We were well aware that management was not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
More than convenient. The top management of these companies is getting most of the benefit of the tax cuts, both personally and in more profit which will also benefit them. They have good reason to make it sound like the tax cuts are helping the average worker.
Target was already paying $11. WalMart had to also to catch up.
Just got a (bulk) email from our CEO announcing The Company is rewarding all our hard work in 2017 with a one-time $1,000 bonus. As though it were completely his & The Board’s idea and solely from the goodness of their hearts. Whatever, doesn’t matter if it’s piss or rain, my back is still getting wet.
Its why we are called “peons”.
nice.