Did I actually say that? Or even imply that? Magiver was saying that the tax breaks were having a positive effect. I was citing a case of the opposite occurring.
Yuo mean the 20,000 jobs that might be created sometime in the next five years?
Ever consider this was in the planning already? New buildings and 350 billion dollars in spending isn’t thrown together overnight.
The tax break sure as hell didn’t save those jobs, did it? So far, it’s way too early to be crowing about the tax break and the wonderful effect it will have.
In the hours after Congress approved the GOP tax cut plan, a handful of companies jumped to announce plans to share some of the proceeds on their employees and spend on infrastructure. Boeing was first out of the gate, followed by AT&T, which said it would give more than 200,000 unionized employees a special bonus of $1,000 once the tax bill is signed. The company also said it would increase its capital expenditures by $1 billion.
And those bonuses are one time and don’t add up to much.
These Companies Started Firing Employees Right After Getting Tax Cuts From Trump
Well, all those things happened. Within weeks of the tax bill passing, America’s richest corporations started laying off workers. By the third week of January, it had become a feeding frenzy, with one company saying it would lay off over 5,000 employees and use its tax cut for global “restructuring.”
[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. But why should they give raises and bonuses to employees if those raises and bonuses are unnecessary to attract and maintain a workforce?
The point is, is that the tax cut is not responsible for walmart finally being profitable enough that they can manage to increase their worker’s wages.
The fact of them closing stores and laying off workers just goes to show that they have no particular loyalty to their employees, and do not just give these raises out of the goodness of their hearts.
If they were using the tax savings to pay bonuses and raises because they love their employees so much that they would use the savings from the tax change to give to them, even if it didn’t make economic sense, they could have used the savings to keep the unprofitable stores open as well, as that would make as much sense as giving employees money that you don’t need to give them.
It’s almost as if it is following a trend that has been going on for nearly a decade now. What’s amazing is that there are people just now noticing.
Except no such trend exists. Businesses are reacting directly to the tax cut with increased wages and increased employment. No such trend existed with the Obama administration. There are no legislative initiatives that you can point to by Obama that generated anything positive to the economy. Obamacare was a job killing pile of legislation crap. Despite his admonishments that drilling wouldn’t lower prices the oil industry was able to side step him with fracking. Had they not done this the economy would have tanked worse than it did.
No, you see that from 2009 to January 2017 the president had nothing to do with the improvement in the economy. From Jan. 2017 to Jan. 2018 the president had everything to do with it.
Must be due to all those things Trump promised to do the first day in office that he never quite got to.
That is absolutely correct, and what I just said. Thank you for repeating my point that, just because a company has increased profits due to the tax cut, they will not decide to share those increased profits out of a sense of loyalty, or love, but only because they have to do that to attract and maintain their workforce.