• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

At&t announces thousands of layoffs, firings just in time for christmas

Rogue Valley said:
GOP .... but, but, the corporate tax cuts will stimulate the economy, create more jobs, and pay for the corporate tax bonanza!

Anyone who believes those lies needs a good swift kick in the arse.
Click to expand...
Why kick them again? Clearly they have been kicked in the head already.
 
holbritter said:
I'm not missing the point. The point you are trying to make does not apply in this case. It's one company and it's for one area of technology that is no longer relevant. When it's one or more companies where the product or service is in demand or needed, then your point will make more sense.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but you are still missing the point. Demand for products and services are exactly what dictate hiring decisions and capital investments by companies. There tax rate doesn't even figure into it. No company that is doing a good business for their products and services would fire anyone due to the corporate tax code. What they pay their employees is a deduction for them anyway. Thus the intellectual dishonesty on the part of the tax cut supporters in claiming it will lead to more jobs and higher wages.

One could certainly argue that our corporate tax code is overly complex and encouraged all sorts of inefficient activities by corporations to reduce their tax burden. Thus corporate taxes should have been reformed and simplified where the statutory rate would be much closer to the rate corporations actually pay. That is not what the Republican's did though. They cut corporate taxes, but also left in most of the complexity because of all the lobbyists lobbying for their industry's tax preferences.
 
Conservative said:
You mean like these??

[/B]

Looks like pretty close to 2 million more employed this year vs. last year when that Obama economy was booming
Click to expand...

1.5 million the year before and more than 3 million the year before that. As usual, the interpretation of your information is meaningless.
 
RetiredUSN said:
:lamo What a hack post. Lacking any intention of honesty.

You saw this BS article and ran with it like a 3 year old after a lollipop!

AT&T is bleeding it's market share, and the layoff's have nothing to do with tax cuts.

https://investorplace.com/2017/09/att-inc-t-losing-war-subscribers/#.WkA3S9-nG70

AT&T Loses Record Number of Traditional TV Subscribers in Q2, Drops 156,000 DirecTV Satellite Customers – Variety

AT&T Loses Record 385,000 Traditional Pay-TV Subscribers in Q3, Posts Gains for DirecTV Now – Variety

AT&T Losses Highlight Internet TV, Cord Cutting Threat | Fortune
Click to expand...

It's just typical liberal bigotry against corporations.
 
holbritter said:
Where does the government say that demand is irrelevant ? Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
As another asked...when has the federal government said demand is irrelevant? But hey...you don't have to answer that if you don't want to. I have another question for you...
Click to expand...
They said so when they passed a $3.76 trillion tax increase on the working/middle class.

If you maintain that demand-side economics is reality, then you applaud this move by ATT, right? After all, they are making business decisions based on the demand for their products and services.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "applaud". Do I think it makes good business sense for AT&T to cut those jobs?

Absolutely.
 
TobyOne said:
Companies with thousands of employees need to cut fat on a regular bases. Too many entitled employees. Its good for both parties. AT&T becomes more efficient and these people can get out of jobs based on dying technologies.
Click to expand...

Tell that to West Virginia's unemployed coal miners.

SouthernDemocrat said:
No company that is doing a good business for their products and services would fire anyone due to the corporate tax code.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. The tax RATE doesn't factor into it, but tax credits certainly do. You provided an example of why this is true:

What they pay their employees is a deduction for them anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gaea said:
They said so when they passed a $3.76 trillion tax increase on the working/middle class.
Click to expand...

What tax increase? I haven't heard of any. I've heard of a recent tax CUT just signed into law...but no tax increase.
 
Mycroft said:
What tax increase? I haven't heard of any. I've heard of a recent tax CUT just signed into law...but no tax increase.
Click to expand...

Tax increases to personal FIT:

$1.318 trillion from personal exemption being eliminated
$593 billion from SALT changes
$47 billion from other personal deductions, credits, and exclusions
$151 billion from switching from CPI -> chained CPI
= $2.1 trillion in tax increases from 2018 - 2027

https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Good description of why "trickle down economics" never works. There is a psychology to it, too. When you give people more money, their natural inclination is not to "trickle it down" but to keep it for themselves.
Click to expand...
Theres an eiement of truth in what your saying in that greed motivates. Everyone wants as much as they can have. Where i find fault in what your saying is your not following through to its end conclusion.

If you lower the tax burden you also lowered production costs. If yhe compant does not lower their price it allows a competitor to lower theirs and take more market shares. They make less per unit but make up for it by having more volume.

Lower taxes does not increase demand directly but making a product more affordable does do that. I dont think thats the biggest factor though. Lowering production costs allows us companies to compete better in the global market. It allows a company like boeing to get a greater market share away from airbus. That results in american workers products being in higher demand on a global scale. Combine greater market share and more affordability and we see greater demand for our products.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Gaea said:
Tax increases to personal FIT:

$1.318 trillion from personal exemption being eliminated
$593 billion from SALT changes
$47 billion from other personal deductions, credits, and exclusions
$151 billion from switching from CPI -> chained CPI
= $2.1 trillion in tax increases from 2018 - 2027

https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/
Click to expand...

Oh...I see, you cherry pick stuff to make this look like a tax increase and ignore the stuff that actually lowers taxes for most people...not to mention business.

Since that's your tactic, you and I have nothing to talk about. I prefer honesty.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am sorry, but you are still missing the point. Demand for products and services are exactly what dictate hiring decisions and capital investments by companies. There tax rate doesn't even figure into it. No company that is doing a good business for their products and services would fire anyone due to the corporate tax code. What they pay their employees is a deduction for them anyway. Thus the intellectual dishonesty on the part of the tax cut supporters in claiming it will lead to more jobs and higher wages.

One could certainly argue that our corporate tax code is overly complex and encouraged all sorts of inefficient activities by corporations to reduce their tax burden. Thus corporate taxes should have been reformed and simplified where the statutory rate would be much closer to the rate corporations actually pay. That is not what the Republican's did though. They cut corporate taxes, but also left in most of the complexity because of all the lobbyists lobbying for their industry's tax preferences.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not missing the point. I am talking about this company, AT&T and this particular situation. I understand what you are saying. I disagree somewhat, but I get it. MY point it that you can't apply it to sections of companies that are on it's way out to begin with.
 
Gaea said:
They said so when they passed a $3.76 trillion tax increase on the working/middle class.



Not sure what you mean by "applaud". Do I think it makes good business sense for AT&T to cut those jobs?

Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Ok. It's your opinion, not a fact. I disagree, but respect your opinion.
 
RetiredUSN said:
:lamo What a hack post. Lacking any intention of honesty.

You saw this BS article and ran with it like a 3 year old after a lollipop!

AT&T is bleeding it's market share, and the layoff's have nothing to do with tax cuts.

https://investorplace.com/2017/09/att-inc-t-losing-war-subscribers/#.WkA3S9-nG70

AT&T Loses Record Number of Traditional TV Subscribers in Q2, Drops 156,000 DirecTV Satellite Customers – Variety

AT&T Loses Record 385,000 Traditional Pay-TV Subscribers in Q3, Posts Gains for DirecTV Now – Variety

AT&T Losses Highlight Internet TV, Cord Cutting Threat | Fortune
Click to expand...

So the tax cuts won't be saving America.
 
Gaea said:
They said so when they passed a $3.76 trillion tax increase on the working/middle class.



Not sure what you mean by "applaud". Do I think it makes good business sense for AT&T to cut those jobs?

Absolutely.
Click to expand...

And what tax increase would that be? Please tell me how much of a tax cut should someone who doesn't pay Federal Income tax get? All this anger over someone else getting to keep more of their income but never an answer as to how someone getting to keep more of what they earn hurts you, your family, or the country?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Good description of why "trickle down economics" never works. There is a psychology to it, too. When you give people more money, their natural inclination is not to "trickle it down" but to keep it for themselves.
Click to expand...

Trickle down always works.

Lower taxes, sane regulations and business friendly environment attracts businesses.

More people are employed.
More people employed means competition for those people = higher wages.
More people employed means fewer government handouts.
More people employed at higher wages + fewer government handouts = higher government revenues.

Captain A and Captain C get an F for Fail.

Further, when corporations* compete, the consumer wins. WalMart is a prime example of putting a couple to few thousand more dollars into the pockets of families annually. Something Democrats claim they will do, but never accomplish.

WalMart also made all manner of companies more efficient, and they pass this on to their consumers. If they don’t... someone else will... just as WalMart had done.

When WalMart started there were all manner of large corporations like Sears and KMart living high... and WalMart stayed close to its customers, fought for its customers, passed on their savings to the customers and the customers benefited tremendously.

The companies that didn’t look out for their customers lost out.

Who won?

The American people.

In Germany they have Lidl, Aldi, Netto, Norma which drive costs down to ridiculously low levels... and they’ve gone overseas to compete against WalMart. Who wins???

The consumer.

Trickle down is massively effective.

*When businesses compete.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Oh...I see, you cherry pick stuff to make this look like a tax increase and ignore the stuff that actually lowers taxes for most people...not to mention business.

Since that's your tactic, you and I have nothing to talk about. I prefer honesty.
Click to expand...

How does a tax cut on a business (profit-maximizing entity) benefit the working/middle class? (when you try to maximize profit, you don't pass on savings to your employees - you pass them on to the people with a stake in your company)

Of course I'm cherry-picking - I'm highlighting unsavory aspects of the tax bill that cause people to dislike the tax bill. When the tax-cutting provisions expire in 2025, we'll only be left with the unsavory aspects I highlighted - which will continue to drain income from the working/middle class until Dems repeal them.

And for what?

Those provisions are literally the mechanism by which we're slashing corporate tax rates by 40%. R's promised to offset all corp. tax cuts with tax increases on them. Instead, they raised taxes by $2 trillion on working/middle class people to pay for the corporate tax rate cut.
 
Gaea said:
How does a tax cut on a business (profit-maximizing entity) benefit the working/middle class? (when you try to maximize profit, you don't pass on savings to your employees - you pass them on to the people with a stake in your company)

Of course I'm cherry-picking - I'm highlighting unsavory aspects of the tax bill that cause people to dislike the tax bill. When the tax-cutting provisions expire in 2025, we'll only be left with the unsavory aspects I highlighted - which will continue to drain income from the working/middle class until Dems repeal them.

And for what?

Those provisions are literally the mechanism by which we're slashing corporate tax rates by 40%. R's promised to offset all corp. tax cuts with tax increases on them. Instead, they raised taxes by $2 trillion on working/middle class people to pay for the corporate tax rate cut.
Click to expand...

zimmer already answered your question in another post.

Lower taxes, sane regulations and business friendly environment attracts businesses.

More people are employed.
More people employed means competition for those people = higher wages.
More people employed means fewer government handouts.
More people employed at higher wages + fewer government handouts = higher government revenues.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that that he said lower taxes, sane regulation and business friendly environment. In your usual cherry-picking way, you ignore two out of three conditions.

Trump is paying attention to all three.
 
Mycroft said:
zimmer already answered your question in another post.



Keep in mind that that he said lower taxes, sane regulation and business friendly environment. In your usual cherry-picking way, you ignore two out of three conditions.

Trump is paying attention to all three.
Click to expand...

The issue is lower taxes don't modify hiring decisions.

The logic you're claiming goes something like this:
1. "I'm currently making a $100 million profit. Of that, I pay 35% to the federal govt in taxes, meaning my profit after taxes is $65 million."
2. "Now the US govt is cutting my tax rate by 40%. So now, my profit after taxes is $79 million."
3. "Since I'm making $79 million instead of $65 million, I'll hire more people even though there's no incentive to do so, and it will cut into my newly gained profits"

How does that make any sense?
 
Gaea said:
The issue is lower taxes don't modify hiring decisions.

The logic you're claiming goes something like this:
1. "I'm currently making a $100 million profit. Of that, I pay 35% to the federal govt in taxes, meaning my profit after taxes is $65 million."
2. "Now the US govt is cutting my tax rate by 40%. So now, my profit after taxes is $79 million."
3. "Since I'm making $79 million instead of $65 million, I'll hire more people even though there's no incentive to do so, and it will cut into my newly gained profits"

How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

Again...unlike Trump, you ignore the other two conditions...sane regulations and business friendly environment. Taken together, all three promote innovation, expansion and competition...which results in increased hiring and increased wages.

You really do need to stop cherry picking.
 
zimmer said:
Trickle down always works.


T
Click to expand...

How about supply the evidence of that from the Reagan administration.

Or how about presenting us with the chart on the jobs created when Canada's Harper government trimmed taxes for the rich. They spent more, yeah, by traveling oversees, sticking in their savings.

And just a piece of advice NOTHING is 100%.

There's a reason that most nations do't do it anymore....just about everyone is pouring money into infrastructure, which DOES create jobs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom