4 ms·

AT&T Plans to Fire 7,000 People Despite Tax Breaks, Net Neutrality Repeal

53 points by petethomas 8y ago

40acres 8y ago
I think the 'trickle down' theory of economic works in principle but only when you choose the correct starting point for the trickle. Forcing banks to have a high level of reserve funds makes sense because in a down market or a crisis lending is less threatened, giving normal families more cash will benefit the economy because they will circulate that cash through the system. Large tax breaks to multinational companies doesn't make sense in a 'trickle down' way because there is so much a large Corp can spend money on that affects only a sliver of the total economy: executive bonuses and share buybacks are the obvious culprits. At the end of the day though, everyone involved with this legislation knew who it was intended for, and it definitely wasn't the economy as a whole. Not to be a partisan but I really can't even discern what domestic policies the GOP has on it's agenda, especially post tax cut. There are so many big ticket problems in American society and they don't seem to have a plan for any of them.
- sjg007 8y ago
  Nope. It doesn’t work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    Oh, it works. That money trickles down right to the Cayman Islands or Panama. All that trickles down to the American public is the drops left when the rich shake after letting it trickle to those places. Trickle down economics could easily be summed up as "pissing on me and telling me it's raining", when Republicans love the rain.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Trickle-up makes a lot more sense. Give money to people at the bottom, or maybe equally to everyone. They will spend it, and whichever businesses serve them best will profit.
  - mbrumlow 8y ago
    I think you have to give it to everybody equally. Othereise it might be more beneficial for some to stay in a lower bracket. I know some will think this is silly but I have seen it fist hand geoing up. This can happen when the cut off for support is a hard cliff. Working one extra job for $100 can bring you over the limit resulting in more than double the support. Essentially meaning you are paying $100 to make $100.
    - niij 8y ago
      Situations like that cause people to be apathetic to moving up. That's the reason I think handouts are a blunt instrument and at most should be used sparingly.
deogeo 8y ago
If a company actively lobbies/bribes the government to pass laws and tax policy at the expense of the general population, I think it's fair to call that company hostile. Perhaps it's time consumers start to act like it.
- tootahe45 8y ago
  It's generally only at the expense of the population when you have massively overblown govt spending, for which the population has to then foot the bill.
danans 8y ago
I never had much of an opinion on corporate tax rates in either direction prior to the debate before the latest tax bill passed - I was much more concerned with (IMO too low) top level marginal income tax rates and capital gains rates. But having understood, and now seen, the resulting huge transfer of wealth to large owners of capital (including, in a smaller way, 401k holding people like me) with paltry or negative gain for large numbers of lower middle income people living paycheck to paycheck, has been an education to say the least.
PostThisTooFast 8y ago
Years ago I heard the government gave the telcos millions or billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, or something to build out their fiber networks... and they just never did it. I haven't been able to find any documentation on this. Anybody know what this supposedly was?
tootahe45 8y ago
Never understood why people point at a single company reshuffling as a failure of the tax cuts when job availability & wages are up significantly. It's like the GM thing where somebody makes a terrible decision and we're meant to believe it's the fault of the govt and that they need to be bailed out. At this point in time, people have more choice in where to work and for what price than ever before, it's likely that ATT would've faced an increase in costs long-term to keep people.

53 points by petethomas 8y ago

I think the 'trickle down' theory of economic works in principle but only when you choose the correct starting point for the trickle. Forcing banks to have a high level of reserve funds makes sense because in a down market or a crisis lending is less threatened, giving normal families more cash will benefit the economy because they will circulate that cash through the system. Large tax breaks to multinational companies doesn't make sense in a 'trickle down' way because there is so much a large Corp can spend money on that affects only a sliver of the total economy: executive bonuses and share buybacks are the obvious culprits. At the end of the day though, everyone involved with this legislation knew who it was intended for, and it definitely wasn't the economy as a whole. Not to be a partisan but I really can't even discern what domestic policies the GOP has on it's agenda, especially post tax cut. There are so many big ticket problems in American society and they don't seem to have a plan for any of them.

sjg007 8y ago
Nope. It doesn’t work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
- dorchadas 8y ago
  Oh, it works. That money trickles down right to the Cayman Islands or Panama. All that trickles down to the American public is the drops left when the rich shake after letting it trickle to those places. Trickle down economics could easily be summed up as "pissing on me and telling me it's raining", when Republicans love the rain.
skybrian 8y ago
Trickle-up makes a lot more sense. Give money to people at the bottom, or maybe equally to everyone. They will spend it, and whichever businesses serve them best will profit.
- mbrumlow 8y ago
  I think you have to give it to everybody equally. Othereise it might be more beneficial for some to stay in a lower bracket. I know some will think this is silly but I have seen it fist hand geoing up. This can happen when the cut off for support is a hard cliff. Working one extra job for $100 can bring you over the limit resulting in more than double the support. Essentially meaning you are paying $100 to make $100.
  - niij 8y ago
    Situations like that cause people to be apathetic to moving up. That's the reason I think handouts are a blunt instrument and at most should be used sparingly.

deogeo 8y ago

If a company actively lobbies/bribes the government to pass laws and tax policy at the expense of the general population, I think it's fair to call that company hostile. Perhaps it's time consumers start to act like it.

tootahe45 8y ago
It's generally only at the expense of the population when you have massively overblown govt spending, for which the population has to then foot the bill.

danans 8y ago

I never had much of an opinion on corporate tax rates in either direction prior to the debate before the latest tax bill passed - I was much more concerned with (IMO too low) top level marginal income tax rates and capital gains rates. But having understood, and now seen, the resulting huge transfer of wealth to large owners of capital (including, in a smaller way, 401k holding people like me) with paltry or negative gain for large numbers of lower middle income people living paycheck to paycheck, has been an education to say the least.

PostThisTooFast 8y ago

Years ago I heard the government gave the telcos millions or billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, or something to build out their fiber networks... and they just never did it. I haven't been able to find any documentation on this. Anybody know what this supposedly was?

tootahe45 8y ago

Never understood why people point at a single company reshuffling as a failure of the tax cuts when job availability & wages are up significantly. It's like the GM thing where somebody makes a terrible decision and we're meant to believe it's the fault of the govt and that they need to be bailed out. At this point in time, people have more choice in where to work and for what price than ever before, it's likely that ATT would've faced an increase in costs long-term to keep people.