U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-30-2018, 03:13 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,026,502 times
Reputation: 2071

Advertisements

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sen-r...?.tsrc=fauxdal

""There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they're going to take the money they're saving and reinvest it in American workers," Rubio, R-Fla., told The Economist in a story release Monday. "In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker."


Have to agree with that statement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2018, 03:53 PM
 
5,598 posts, read 4,204,310 times
Reputation: 10552
Money is not going back to the working population unless businesses expand. Some businesses are expanding. Others are going bankrupt or are cautious about expanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 04:04 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,833 posts, read 57,830,396 times
Reputation: 29215
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
Sen. Rubio: Corporations aren't investing tax cuts in jobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5VZjT0JE70
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 04:06 PM
 
Location: midvalley Oregon and Eastside seattle area
2,900 posts, read 1,344,207 times
Reputation: 2410
Did you expect some other result?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 04:10 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,026,502 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by leastprime View Post
Did you expect some other result?
The people to be proven wrong.. but instead we was proven right. Just sad they had to believe in something that they knew it was a bust, just to shut up the red head step child.

btw can that tax change be reappeal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 04:12 PM
 
4,010 posts, read 1,954,266 times
Reputation: 5211
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
The people to be proven wrong.. but instead we was proven right. Just sad they had to believe in something that they knew it was a bust, just to shut up the red head step child.

btw can that tax change be reappeal?
It CAN but it won't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 04:25 PM
 
2,136 posts, read 1,149,266 times
Reputation: 4368
Trickle down in one of the biggest economic lies perpetuated.

Wages need to rise for the bottom 75% or so if we want to see real economic expansion.

The tax plan was little more than a giant corporate handout at a time when corporations needed no help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 04:51 PM
 
3,457 posts, read 1,978,113 times
Reputation: 7833
As noted in other posts, it didn't happen, and we the people knew it would not.

Trickle down has NEVER worked when tried.

Corporations and business owners are greedy plain and simple, always have been, always will be, regardless of what legislation is passed EXCEPT minimum wage hikes.

And no one in Congress wants to be against or take on big business, it's bad for the Congress' business, lol.

Even if they DID pay more, the employees would use it to pay down debt or save it, not necessarily add to the economy.
When they have a living wage and can stay out of "small debt" (credit card charging as opposed to big debt-car loan or mortgage), can save for retirement and or kids college, a houseand what not, THEN they will add to the economy.

It's been years since that had been the case.

In the 80s I worked retail at 3+ x minimum wage, if I were to get what I was getting then equally today, I'd be making about at least $30/hr. Try and get that out of Wal-Mart.
I'm making the same I was in 1989, and I'm at about minimum ( in my case on purpose, but if I WAS making $30 / hr, that purpose would go away). Point is retail was never " lucrative", but it did pay closer to a living wage back then. Heck I'd settle for the sometimes elusive $15/hr and would be tickled to get $20. But it won't happen voluntary by businesses.

If big business is your friend, you make sure they profit handsomely, that's for sure. Who cares about the voters.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia/South Jersey area
2,280 posts, read 1,033,859 times
Reputation: 7538
Quote:
Originally Posted by leastprime View Post
Did you expect some other result?
For real!! I am astonished that folks actually believe anything ANY politician says.

Hey I'm not mad at the powers that be, they said flat out this tax cut benefited corporations.
All the rest of us have to do is incorporate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 05:13 PM
 
2,240 posts, read 1,385,700 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliza61nyc View Post
For real!! I am astonished that folks actually believe anything ANY politician says.

Hey I'm not mad at the powers that be, they said flat out this tax cut benefited corporations.
[b] All the rest of us have to do is incorporate. [\B]
And after those people did that, they would understand corporate tax rates are only lower because there’s a dual tax on those earnings. At the corporate AND again at the passthru level.


Getting back to the op...

If I got a $25,000 raise at work, would I be obligated to pay the person cutting my grass more? Did they provide more value? If not, why are they getting a raise? That’s “deep pockets” syndrome if I’ve ever seen it.

Corporations are there to maximize shareholder wealth; not random employees wealth. It’s up to the employee to maximize their earnings by honing their own skills and testing the market for their skill set. The corporation has an obligation to its shareholders, not to pay employees more just because.

If they want to be owners and share in the corporation’s profit, they should buy shares. If the shareholders are losing money....the employees still get paid in bad times. Should employees be demanded to take less than market when the company is sinking? If not, why should they make above market simply because the company is making more money? They aren’t equity partners. They’re stakeholders.

People need to understand the difference between providing value and commanding a salary versus merely demanding it.

Also, companies who had demand for additional capacity would chase it with or without tax reform. They were not sitting on their hands throwing revenue and profit away waiting for tax reform.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top