Two Million People (and counting) Receiving Tax Reform Bonuses

And how does he know the bonuses weren't the result of 2017 being a record year of earnings? Tax bill happened very late and most bonuses were calculated before then.

 

So, I guess you are telling me by new buddy Steve won't get me that bonus, eh?

 

$3 Billion per worker is hardly $20 bucks. People like to spin spin spin. But unless you compare bonuses to what would have been given out you don't know the outcome.

Should also add that the tax cut just at the time our economy is in a very tight labor market and with wages already rising (nothing to do with the tax cut mind you) - you're adding fuel to a very hot economy and guess what - it just spooked investors about inflation.

Trump passing stimulus during a boom is going to backfire on us all. People like you look at the short term impact. But by overheating the economy you get higher inflation (so our nice $1,000 bonus disappears on devaluation of the entire salary) and force the feds to raise interest rates which is going to hit everyone as well.

Trump is doing this to win an election, but it is not good for the long-term health of the economy

 

That's a lot of assumptions of the future, how long will the economy last? Especially now that the market sees the Feds raising rates more quickly .... the stock market is on a historic run (only preceding the Great Depression) and historically we have passed the mark for time periods between recessions. We saw what happens to revenue under Bush Jr when you cut taxes and increased spending.

There's going to be tax savings and deficit spending. Just remember, a GOP controlled government decided to add to the debt during a strong economy with no plans on reining in defense and entitlements.

Your GOP can take credit for the short term and will take credit for the long term. Just remember Bush Jr.

 

Nothing...what guaranteed it, in, say for example, the $750 Billion Bailout for Main Street boondoggle...or any other similar bill? Were you likewise concerned about those, when they came from Democrats? If so, please do provide links. If not...why not?

FWIW...why would you think, in growing economy, higher wages, future bonuses, and more jobs wouldn't occur? More importantly...how would those occur WITHOUT a growing economy???

 

Yes, a lot of assumptions. BUT is there a good reason to think that lowering taxes will NOT spur the economy? Or that lowering taxes will work negatively on the economy?

Yes. Not my preferred arrangement, but given other options, one I'd certainly take. Tax savings are generally beneficial, and business knows FAR better how to spend money to spur the economy than the government does. The additional spending also seems beneficial. We need the infrastructure focus, and the plan seems to be to limit government spending to just seed money, cutting down the impact. Not only does this address a long overlooked area, but it should also benefit the economy, both sort term and long term.

Yes, that is how politics work. But, as you describe it, it sounds win-win for Republicans, who will benefit either way.

FWIW...the 'crumbs' comment from Pelosi will not play well with the very people Democrats typically pander to. I have no idea what she was thinking, but Republicans everywhere rejoiced when she said it. Not only that, but she continues to double down on it. I doubt they'll admit it publicly, but I suspect Democrats everywhere are scrambling trying to figure out what to do about it. I guess it was an attempt to play the class card, but it was very ham handed, and isn't helpful to them. It is not surprising, but highly ironic, that when similar benefits came from Democratic bills, they were portrayed as just the thing the working and middle class needed. Her hypocrisy does indeed know no bounds.

 

But the economy was growing without the tax cuts. Unemployment was dropping without the tax cuts. Why did we need the tax cuts? To spur the already spurred economy? To increase military and infrastructure spending that we so desperately need (according to Trump that is)?

 

Corporate profit growth has been increasing yet wages, bonuses have not tracked along with profits. Even with the recent large corporate tax break trump gave to companies, the percentage of employees that got raises and/or bonuses has been low. Many companies have used that tax break to pay for layoffs or to boots shareholder return.

Don't see where the strawdog comes into this discussion, I thought we're discussing tax cuts... but knock yourself if you want to criticize past bailouts.

 

I was happy for bailouts and stimulus when the economy wasn't growing and we needed to grow. That is the time for deficit spending.

When our economy is already growing that is the time to cut back on spending and put money to pay down the debt. It's a pretty basic economic plan. Why have a stimulus tax cut that balloon the deficit when the economy is already growing?

 

Is making a strong economy stronger at the expense of revenue a prudent decision?

Spin spin spin baby. The GOP choose to not only lower corporate taxes but cut taxes on the wealthy, they could have made it revenue neutral but they choose not do. So the Bush Jr 2.0 special sounds good? We have trillions in liabilities towards SSN and Medicare but you think lowering revenue is prudent in order to juice an an already strong economy?

We know how the Bush Jr special ends up..... why do you think this time will be different? You are essentially saying deficit don't matter.

Not if we end up vastly cutting medicare in order to pay for the tax cuts and other services people need. Not if when the inevitable recession happens and our ability to get out of it is hampered because we are in further debt.

Not really. Speaking of hypocrisy..... greatly expanding the debt after decrying the debt..... All it takes is a downturn and all that goodwill from a strong economy is wiped away.

 

Just seeing if you had the same complaints about those. Since you didn't reply with any, I'll assume you didn't. Ie, its only an issue when Republicans do it...and hence rhetoric and not really worthy of discussion. Please correct me if this is not the case.

 

The difference wasn't about Republican or Democrat as much as it was about recession vs. already growing.

 

Economically, that remains to be seen. Politically...yes. Voters don't care about revenue, or the deficit. They've proven that over and over and over again.

Fair enough, and I would have been against that, although I suspect they couldn't have made it revenue neutral, unless forgoing the corporate tax cuts (corporations pay far more in taxes than the wealthy do).

First, no one really cares about those liabilities....look at the public outcry if anyone even mentions reforming those programs. ESPECIALLY from the left.

Second, the ONLY way to come close to paying for those programs is to massively grow the economy. So, yes anything that contributes to growing the economy is probably a good thing.

Finally, again, money directed towards business instead of the government is a lot more likely to grow the economy.

Voters have been saying that for decades, and, again, the ONLY way to possibly reduce the deficits without massively slashing those programs is to grow the economy as fast as possible.

If we end up doing that, it won't be because of the tax cuts. Those are stated as...$1.5 trillion? When the current unfunded liabilities of those programs is... $70 Trillion? Not even a significant difference.

First, it isn't hampered. They will simply print more money. that's why they do. There is even a growing school of thought (Modern Monetary Theory) that this isn't even a bad thing.

But, aside from that, Dems like to throw around the $1.5 Trillion number to make it sound worse than it is. That works out to ... $150 Billion a year. What is our current deficit? $666 billion (ok, that's a bit scary!). So it adds about 25% more to the deficit, ASSUMING it isn't recovered through increased revenue due to a growing economy. That doesn't sound as bad, which is why the Dems frame it the other way.

Yes, all sides are guilty of hypocrisy, and the Republicans haven't done much at all to curb the deficit. So, given deficits, I prefer to at least see the money directed to things that will spur the economy. That should help alleviate the deficits long terms, as opposed to increased social spending, which does the opposite.

 

That actually spur the economy? You do realize the economy's shape when Obama took over, and what happened with the stimulus he pushed through right? That certainly spurred the economy and turned it around completely.

 

I would have agreed with you a couple years ago, or even less, but...

1. we are never going to pay down the debt. Sad fact of life. At best, we can keep the debt from crushing us. I would generally like to see us at least reduce the deficit. That said, I prefer money in my hands as opposed to the government's, as the government has demonstrated they are irresponsible with it, and also I prefer spending that grows the economy as opposed to social spending that increases liabilities.

 

You understand money in the hands of the poor is almost guaranteed to be spent, thus growing the economy, while the wealthy may choose to simply save the money?

Democrats strongly support infrastructure spending. In fact, the stimulus would have had more, but instead Republicans insisted that tax cuts be included and Obama back then was still actually trying to work with Republicans before realizing they weren't negotiating in good faith.

 

What stimulus that he pushed through? (fwiw, and Obama has said this himself, he didn't push anything through. He relied far too much on Democratic leaders in Congress for that, and has said that is one thing he would have done differently). The Bailout for Main Street? Perhaps the biggest boondoggle of federal spending in history. If that is your poster child...bzzzzt, try again. The spending per job created by that program was something ridiculous, like several million dollars per job, and the jobs were all temporary. It was a pure cash grab, created by the Democrats to counter the spending to bail out Wall Street, for political purposes only. That the two were essentially the same dollar amount was no coincidence, and was arrived at through no other means. Me too spending at its worst.

What Obama did to 'spur' the economy was go into office right after a big crash. Fortunate for him but completely lacking in cause/effect. If you wanted to try to trace it to anything, it would be the plans put in place by Bush before he left office, but I would say it was more simple natural recovery, which is really what the Wall Street bailout was designed to provide. It was meant to stem the fallout to keep it from preventing the rebound. Bush brought Obama into the fold on that prior to his taking office, to maintain continuity on it. Which Obama did.

 

I do. But what happens after they spend it? What long term boost does it create? It is better to spend it on things that will actually grow the economy, THEN use the money obtained from that to fund these things.

Also, what happens when the economy grows? The poor get jobs, or get better jobs, with better pay. Then, yes, they spend that extra money...but they continue to do so, not just the one time they receive it.

They do...but you will see them oppose this, simply because it wasn't their idea. Hopefully, the two will come together and make a comprehensive plan. Such spending is LOOONNGG overdue. Our infrastructure was crumbling decades ago. it certainly didn't get better with age.

Side note: they just came by to test my water today. it wasn't good...and I certainly don't live in an area you would associate with bad water. Our pipes are old and corroded nationwide. They are just much worse in some places than others.

 

We can talk about the ARRA. It included tax cuts as well as stimulus.

I agree we won't erase the debt, nor should we, but we should start paying it down and at least not increase the deficit during a period of strong and prolonged growth.

Saying that Obama was lucky to have come in after a crash is silly. That isn't an enviable task for any leader.