But for rich and poor alike, a layoff is definitely life-changing....
Agree there, no doubt, most people would rather have a job than a $1000 bonus. But what does that mean in this context? Should Walmart keep those 60 Sam's Club stores open at a loss to avoid laying people off? Should the government subsidize them? Maybe it should break apart Amazon because a lot of those location will become e-distribution centers.
What would you have done. How would you have saved those Sam's Clubs workers? I am curious, not being sarcastic or tricky? I'd suggest breaking Amazon into regional companies like they did with AT&T. Or maybe breaking AWS away from Amazon-retail business.
Decreasing taxes on retained profits increases the incentive to cut any activity that is a short term loss rather than trying to turn it around.
Because business expenses are deductible from corporate “income” taxes, they are functionally retained profits taxes.
So, yes, the tax cuts incentivized the layoffs.
So lower taxes means people are laid off, higher taxes means they are laid off. What tax structure would give them an incentive _not_ to lay people off?
They are basically closing off 60 Sam's Clubs. When is the last time you went to Sam's Club? Do you know anyone who goes there regularly? I don't. I had membership many years ago. Many will be converted to e-distribution centers. Guessing this has little to do with taxes and more to do with new year reorg to compete with Amazon. Otherwise, what would you do? What kind of incentives would you give to Walmart to save those Sam's Club workers?
For 20+ year employees.
At 10 years the bonus was, IIRC, $190. IMHO, "laughable".
Sure we are all software developers expecting 6 figure salaries, RSUs, options and $50k bonuses every year, $1000 is nothing, I get it. Though someone working at an AT&T store in Columbus, OH or Kansas would be quite happy to get $1000. it's disappointing and I'd wish they all had large salaries and thought $1000 is insulting just like we do.
In general we would rather have free healthcare, and other things we like to talk about here, but those probably are not going to happen in this country at his point in time. But why not be happy for these people at least or say that it is nice for Apple to pay some taxes and invest in US as opposed to stashing it away for another 20 years.
They have a total of about 250k employees worldwide: https://www.att.com/Common/about_us/pdf/att_btn.pdf.
Pretty sure there 80% of their workforce are not district supervisors and store managers.
Comcast said it paid the bonus to 100k employees "that are eligible and not in executive roles".
> So I'm not happy for them because they don't exist.
Good news, I think I found them!
> Comcast said it paid the bonus to 100k employees "that are eligible and not in executive roles".
But neither did they say they were making min wage. And then ...
> Good news, I think I found them!
You aren’t making a valid inference here, it honestly feels like something Trump would claim.
AT&T has a lot of door-to-door people: technicians, sales "consultants". Also people in call centers. Those are a lot closer to minimum wage than what you are implying - that only managers and big wigs got those bonuses.
> You aren’t making a valid inference here
The claim was you couldn't be happy for them because basically only managers got those. I did some legwork and found that it's probably not true. You were looking for a reason to cheer and be happy for them, so I found one.
> it honestly feels like something Trump would claim.
I usually prefer a conversational style with exclamation points and allegories. But I think you're not in the mood for that. Sorry, I should be more formal perhaps.
Also not sure why we are talking about Trump?. But since you brought him up (invoked the Devil's name!). Do you think he is responsible for these tax cuts and the bonuses or it is mostly a charade?
What companies are doing is exactly what they were expected to do: make some "feel good" moves for a bit to validate the tax plan as a "resounding success" until the midterm elections, then do whatever they want. I've seen these incredible displays of "corporate goodwill" after tax breaks like this to know they are always temporary and self-serving (I grew up in a country where these "booms" happened like clockwork every 8 or so years.)
> The companies certainly didn't have to give those and could have pocketed all of it.
Now imagine if the tax give-away would have gone completely to workers.
That would be life changing.
That's up to a $1000 bonus. That's if you've been working there for 20 years.
Having been poor, then living on $750/month in US for many years, a $1000 bonus is not life changing but also not laughable.
The companies certainly didn't have to give those and could have pocketed all of it.
> large lay offs in two cases (Walmart and Comcast).
Are those because of the tax incentives?