6 ms·

All the comments seem to be sketpical or negative. I think it's funny if you go back right before tax reform passed and look at all the comments on articles her

All the comments seem to be sketpical or negative. I think it's funny if you go back right before tax reform passed and look at all the comments on articles here on HN almost all were blasting tax reform. Saying it won't work, it does not help the economy, does not create jobs, and repatriation only leads to stock buybacks and executive bonuses. So far we've seen company after company giving substantial bonuses to all employees, announcing expansions, repatriating large amounts of capital from overseas back to America. Funny the nerative always seems to stay negative even though facts say otherwise.

southphillyman 9y ago
To be fair the bonuses I've heard about have been laughable so far and accompanied by large lay offs in two cases (Walmart and Comcast).
- Clanan 9y ago
  $1,000 is not laughable to most people.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    3 car payments on 2 rent payments in a lot of the country. Its like the folks poo-pooing the Youtube folks earning a couple hundred off their channels. That little bit helps quite a lot.
  - pg314 9y ago
    If you're talking about Walmart, they announced a one-time bonus of up to $1,000. Walmart estimates that it will cost about $400 million [1], and they employ 2.3 million people [2], so the average bonus is under $200. Meanwhile Walmart will save about $1.8 billion a year in taxes, every year, thanks to the tax cut. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/wal-mart-raises-u-s-hourly-wage-to-11-in-wake-of-tax-overhaul https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/wal-mart-... [2] https://www.google.be/search?q=number+of+employees+walmart https://www.google.be/search?q=number+of+employees+walmart
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - res0nat0r 9y ago
      Also is that $1,000 if you're a 20 year employee? So for 20 years of service you get a $50 gift card worth of bonus once a year? No thanks, I'll take a permanent living wage increase instead.
    - Clanan 9y ago
      Walmart said it's raising it's minimum wage in addition to bonuses. And there are 163 other companies giving bonuses. But sure, it would be nice for the employees if Walmart gave more of that savings to them.
  - MisterBastahrd 9y ago
    $1000 is better PR than any advertising they could have spent, but it's not even a crumb in terms of what the company is saving.
  - dmode 9y ago
    $1000 bonus is $500 after taxes. Which means, it is $40/month or $20/paycheck. It is laughable. Most employees will get $200 bonuses, which roughly will equate to $4/paycheck.
    - Clanan 9y ago
      > $20/paycheck. It is laughable And we tech people wonder why so much of the country scoffs at our echo chamber. Maybe you've never been on the lower rung of income, but an extra $40/month can be a big deal to a lot of people. Typical median household income in 2017 was $59k, so a 2% increase is meaningful. But don't let me get in the way of your political narrative.
    - leakybit 9y ago
      Where are you getting a 50% tax rate from?
  - snowwrestler 9y ago
    Of course not, but that doesn't mean you should take a well-timed and carefully worded press release at face value. Let's see what actually lands in whose bank accounts before we raise the praise flags.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > I've heard about have been laughable so far 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?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Are those because of the tax incentives? 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.
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      Would it work to argue that increasing taxes also is an incentive for layoffs? Higher taxes, means lower profit margins, means some product lines become unsustainable so departments are closed and people are laid off. 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?
  - geofft 9y ago
    > Having been poor, then living on $750/month in US for many years, a $1000 bonus is not life changing but also not laughable. But for rich and poor alike, a layoff is definitely life-changing....
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      > 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.
- nodesocket 9y ago
  Bank of America, AT&T, Comcast, Walmart, Jetblue, Southwest are just a few who announced $1,000 bonuses. Not laughable to middle class Americans. Aren't middle class who liberals fight for? Source: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/economy/tax-law-raises-bonuses/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/economy/tax-law-raises-...
  - FigmentEngine 9y ago
    https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-fires-thousands-after-bonus-annoucement-47df627e0e04/amp/ https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-fires-thousands-after-bonu...
    - nodesocket 9y ago
      This is #fakenews. Walmart did not fire employees, Sam's club a separately owned subsidiary did, mainly because the Sam's club business is not doing well and had to make hard decisions. It is widely accepted that Walmart had no idea Sam's club was going to do the round of layoffs when they announced their wage increase and bonuses. Also, thinkprogress really should not be cited as a source of quality unbiased news.
      - untog 9y ago
        > It is widely accepted that Walmart had no idea Sam's club was going to do the round of layoffs when they announced their wage increase and bonuses. Any source for that assertion?
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Sam’s club is owned and operated by Walmart, at least according to wiki. That Walmart’s retail operation carries the same name as the corporation isn’t unusual. So this is fake news like the rest of what Trump calls fake news is (meaning, it’s actually true).
      - dang 9y ago
        > This is #fakenews. Please don't do this here; it breaks the HN guideline against name-calling in arguments. Your comment would be fine without the first, and perhaps also the last, sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- acali 9y ago
  What about Walmart also increasing their hourly pay? [0] [0] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/11/walmart-to-boost-starting-wage-give-employees-bonus-after-tax-bill.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/11/walmart-to-boost-starting-wa...
  - FigmentEngine 9y ago
    https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-fires-thousands-after-bonus-annoucement-47df627e0e04/amp/ https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-fires-thousands-after-bonu...
    - adventured 9y ago
      That's intentionally context dropping by Think Progress. Walmart's Sam's Club business is not doing well in competition with Costco. It hasn't been doing very well for years now. You'll notice the Think Progress article avoids any discussion of the context of the Sam's Club business from which the workers were fired. Here's the hint: Sam's Club closed 63 locations. Do you think they did that to save money on the workers? They didn't just fire workers at the locations, they closed 63 locations.
      - jayd16 9y ago
        Just shows how supply side economics doesn't save jobs.
  - pktgen 9y ago
    Which coincides with state and local minimum wage increases; see http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/29/news/economy/2018-minimum-wage-increases/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/29/news/economy/2018-minimum-wa.... More increases are coming; several states are phasing in increases over multiple years. They're just getting ahead of the minimum wage increases and trying to get good PR out of it ("no, we didn't do this because we were forced to, we did it because we love our workers. cut our taxes more!").
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    That probably has more to do with low unemployment.
- notyourday 9y ago
  And that's exactly the reason why America thinks that the people who live on the coasts are out of touch elitists. $1000 is a gigantic bonus for people.
matmann2001 9y ago
Tax reform isn't the force driving Apple to do this. Apple is doing these things because they believe it will eventually help their bottom line. That's how corporations work and make decisions. Granted, tax reform may have been a contributing factor in opening the door to this type of reinvestment in the US, but it is way too early to declare these actions by Apple as a victory for tax reform.
untog 9y ago
You're conflating a few different things here. The main objection to tax reform was that incredibly rich individuals are going to pay a lot less tax, and the middle classes will (once the temporary cuts expire) end up paying more. All of these complaints about the individual tax rates have very little to do with the impact of these corporate tax changes. And let's face it: it's far too early to say that these tax changes have been either a success or a failure. The way the reforms were passed - another source of legitimate complaint - sidestepped all the usual assessments and calculations in order to pass something, anything as quickly as possible. So we're flying in the dark here. Yes, these short term bonuses are a positive sign. But who knows what the impact of lower tax revenue will be on other services (e.g.) Walmart employees depend on. Will they still be happy with a $200 bonus if they find out their Medicare coverage gets cut?
datawarrior 9y ago
The mental gymnastics coming from leftists today is utterly mind blowing. What confounds me most is these people happily ignore real world evidence just to push their agenda, nevermind who it hurts. Its worse than watching people cheer a football team. At least when they cheer a team no one gets hurt but these people literally want the downfall of America just so their team can win. Its truly sad.
aggie 9y ago
> Funny the nerative always seems to stay negative even though facts say otherwise. You're relying on a handful of anecdotes, of which at least several don't look so good upon close inspection, to infer a larger economic benefit. Sounds like it's just narrative vs. narrative.
patall 9y ago
The thing is that those values would have needed to be repatriated at some point anyways (with the added benefits for everyone). So if the repatriation tax would never have been lowered, at some point cooperations would have had to deal with it and pay. But as everyone knew that at some point in history the GOP would come in power and lower the tax, there was no incentive the repatriate with the higher burden as it was monetarily advantageous to wait. So in the end, those benefits would have happened at some point in any case, just only like this with lowered public benefit.
relaxed 9y ago
HN seems to be very anti Trump and looking to satisfy confirmation bias or to promote the narrative that the Trump admin can't get anything right.

southphillyman 9y ago

To be fair the bonuses I've heard about have been laughable so far and accompanied by large lay offs in two cases (Walmart and Comcast).

Clanan 9y ago
$1,000 is not laughable to most people.
- protomyth 9y ago
  3 car payments on 2 rent payments in a lot of the country. Its like the folks poo-pooing the Youtube folks earning a couple hundred off their channels. That little bit helps quite a lot.
- pg314 9y ago
  If you're talking about Walmart, they announced a one-time bonus of up to $1,000. Walmart estimates that it will cost about $400 million [1], and they employ 2.3 million people [2], so the average bonus is under $200. Meanwhile Walmart will save about $1.8 billion a year in taxes, every year, thanks to the tax cut. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/wal-mart-raises-u-s-hourly-wage-to-11-in-wake-of-tax-overhaul https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/wal-mart-... [2] https://www.google.be/search?q=number+of+employees+walmart https://www.google.be/search?q=number+of+employees+walmart
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - res0nat0r 9y ago
    Also is that $1,000 if you're a 20 year employee? So for 20 years of service you get a $50 gift card worth of bonus once a year? No thanks, I'll take a permanent living wage increase instead.
  - Clanan 9y ago
    Walmart said it's raising it's minimum wage in addition to bonuses. And there are 163 other companies giving bonuses. But sure, it would be nice for the employees if Walmart gave more of that savings to them.
- MisterBastahrd 9y ago
  $1000 is better PR than any advertising they could have spent, but it's not even a crumb in terms of what the company is saving.
- dmode 9y ago
  $1000 bonus is $500 after taxes. Which means, it is $40/month or $20/paycheck. It is laughable. Most employees will get $200 bonuses, which roughly will equate to $4/paycheck.
  - Clanan 9y ago
    > $20/paycheck. It is laughable And we tech people wonder why so much of the country scoffs at our echo chamber. Maybe you've never been on the lower rung of income, but an extra $40/month can be a big deal to a lot of people. Typical median household income in 2017 was $59k, so a 2% increase is meaningful. But don't let me get in the way of your political narrative.
  - leakybit 9y ago
    Where are you getting a 50% tax rate from?
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  Of course not, but that doesn't mean you should take a well-timed and carefully worded press release at face value. Let's see what actually lands in whose bank accounts before we raise the praise flags.
rdtsc 9y ago
> I've heard about have been laughable so far 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?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Are those because of the tax incentives? 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.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    Would it work to argue that increasing taxes also is an incentive for layoffs? Higher taxes, means lower profit margins, means some product lines become unsustainable so departments are closed and people are laid off. 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?
- geofft 9y ago
  > Having been poor, then living on $750/month in US for many years, a $1000 bonus is not life changing but also not laughable. But for rich and poor alike, a layoff is definitely life-changing....
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > 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.
nodesocket 9y ago
Bank of America, AT&T, Comcast, Walmart, Jetblue, Southwest are just a few who announced $1,000 bonuses. Not laughable to middle class Americans. Aren't middle class who liberals fight for? Source: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/economy/tax-law-raises-bonuses/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/economy/tax-law-raises-...
- FigmentEngine 9y ago
  https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-fires-thousands-after-bonus-annoucement-47df627e0e04/amp/ https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-fires-thousands-after-bonu...
  - nodesocket 9y ago
    This is #fakenews. Walmart did not fire employees, Sam's club a separately owned subsidiary did, mainly because the Sam's club business is not doing well and had to make hard decisions. It is widely accepted that Walmart had no idea Sam's club was going to do the round of layoffs when they announced their wage increase and bonuses. Also, thinkprogress really should not be cited as a source of quality unbiased news.
    - untog 9y ago
      > It is widely accepted that Walmart had no idea Sam's club was going to do the round of layoffs when they announced their wage increase and bonuses. Any source for that assertion?
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Sam’s club is owned and operated by Walmart, at least according to wiki. That Walmart’s retail operation carries the same name as the corporation isn’t unusual. So this is fake news like the rest of what Trump calls fake news is (meaning, it’s actually true).
    - dang 9y ago
      > This is #fakenews. Please don't do this here; it breaks the HN guideline against name-calling in arguments. Your comment would be fine without the first, and perhaps also the last, sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
acali 9y ago
What about Walmart also increasing their hourly pay? [0] [0] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/11/walmart-to-boost-starting-wage-give-employees-bonus-after-tax-bill.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/11/walmart-to-boost-starting-wa...
- FigmentEngine 9y ago
  https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-fires-thousands-after-bonus-annoucement-47df627e0e04/amp/ https://thinkprogress.org/walmart-fires-thousands-after-bonu...
  - adventured 9y ago
    That's intentionally context dropping by Think Progress. Walmart's Sam's Club business is not doing well in competition with Costco. It hasn't been doing very well for years now. You'll notice the Think Progress article avoids any discussion of the context of the Sam's Club business from which the workers were fired. Here's the hint: Sam's Club closed 63 locations. Do you think they did that to save money on the workers? They didn't just fire workers at the locations, they closed 63 locations.
    - jayd16 9y ago
      Just shows how supply side economics doesn't save jobs.
- pktgen 9y ago
  Which coincides with state and local minimum wage increases; see http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/29/news/economy/2018-minimum-wage-increases/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/29/news/economy/2018-minimum-wa.... More increases are coming; several states are phasing in increases over multiple years. They're just getting ahead of the minimum wage increases and trying to get good PR out of it ("no, we didn't do this because we were forced to, we did it because we love our workers. cut our taxes more!").
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  That probably has more to do with low unemployment.
notyourday 9y ago
And that's exactly the reason why America thinks that the people who live on the coasts are out of touch elitists. $1000 is a gigantic bonus for people.

matmann2001 9y ago

Tax reform isn't the force driving Apple to do this. Apple is doing these things because they believe it will eventually help their bottom line. That's how corporations work and make decisions. Granted, tax reform may have been a contributing factor in opening the door to this type of reinvestment in the US, but it is way too early to declare these actions by Apple as a victory for tax reform.

untog 9y ago

You're conflating a few different things here. The main objection to tax reform was that incredibly rich individuals are going to pay a lot less tax, and the middle classes will (once the temporary cuts expire) end up paying more. All of these complaints about the individual tax rates have very little to do with the impact of these corporate tax changes. And let's face it: it's far too early to say that these tax changes have been either a success or a failure. The way the reforms were passed - another source of legitimate complaint - sidestepped all the usual assessments and calculations in order to pass something, anything as quickly as possible. So we're flying in the dark here. Yes, these short term bonuses are a positive sign. But who knows what the impact of lower tax revenue will be on other services (e.g.) Walmart employees depend on. Will they still be happy with a $200 bonus if they find out their Medicare coverage gets cut?

datawarrior 9y ago

The mental gymnastics coming from leftists today is utterly mind blowing. What confounds me most is these people happily ignore real world evidence just to push their agenda, nevermind who it hurts. Its worse than watching people cheer a football team. At least when they cheer a team no one gets hurt but these people literally want the downfall of America just so their team can win. Its truly sad.

aggie 9y ago

> Funny the nerative always seems to stay negative even though facts say otherwise. You're relying on a handful of anecdotes, of which at least several don't look so good upon close inspection, to infer a larger economic benefit. Sounds like it's just narrative vs. narrative.

patall 9y ago

The thing is that those values would have needed to be repatriated at some point anyways (with the added benefits for everyone). So if the repatriation tax would never have been lowered, at some point cooperations would have had to deal with it and pay. But as everyone knew that at some point in history the GOP would come in power and lower the tax, there was no incentive the repatriate with the higher burden as it was monetarily advantageous to wait. So in the end, those benefits would have happened at some point in any case, just only like this with lowered public benefit.

relaxed 9y ago

HN seems to be very anti Trump and looking to satisfy confirmation bias or to promote the narrative that the Trump admin can't get anything right.