• 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!

Kimberly-Clark says tax bill helps fund plan that includes more than 5,000 layoffs

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,631
Reaction score
51,676
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nd-plan-that-includes-more-than-5000-layoffs/

Kimberly-Clark, the Dallas-based maker of Kleenex, Huggies, Kotex and other consumer products, plans to use some of its windfall to cover the costs of shrinking its workforce by as much as 13 percent as it shutters factories and reorganizes operations

Chief financial officer Maria Henry said the company’s gains from the tax overhaul would help offset the cost of the restructuring plan. The company had an effective tax rate of 28.6 percent in 2017, and the rate would drop to between 23 and 26 percent in 2018 as a result of congressional action, boosting year-over-year earnings growth by 6 points, she told analysts during a conference call to discuss recent financial results.

“We also anticipate ongoing annual cash flow benefits from tax reform,” Henry said. “That provides us flexibility to continue to allocate significant capital to shareholders while we also fund increased capital spending and our restructuring program over the next few years.”

So much for trickle-down! :thumbdown
 
And here is the Democrats solution:

Nice deflection. Why do you think trickle-down is failing these soon-to-be-unemployed workers?
 
Does that mean the tax plan helps a company to stay afloat that otherwise would have folded by now?
 
I can't access the WaPo article ... are those 5,000 jobs worldwide or just USA?
 
So ... a huge company closes 10 factories and cuts out 5,000 jobs world-wide because of sluggish sales in the last - what?!? - 5 or so years and libs somehow want to tie it in a negative way to Trump's tax reform?!?

Come on, people, you've got to do better than this if you want anyone to fall for that BS. :lol:
 

Major company after major company, in industry after industry, announcing bonuses, investments, raises, hiring, benefiting millions of workers, all due to the tax reform according to them, but no, you gotta hype that one which doesn't (but apparently will be better-placed to survive the problems it's having).

(Never mind that instant raises aren't how supply-side economics are said to lift all boats.)
 
So ... a huge company closes 10 factories and cuts out 5,000 jobs world-wide because of sluggish sales in the last - what?!? - 5 or so years and libs somehow want to tie it in a negative way to Trump's tax reform?!?

Come on, people, you've got to do better than this if you want anyone to fall for that BS. :lol:

You obviously didn't read the article that cited the tax bill as a direct incentive to lay off thousands of workers. Trickle-down, my ass.
 
Bottom line as to why trickle down does not work is so simple that a grade school student can understand it. Jobs don't come from giving breaks to the rich. It comes from everybody buying products, thus stimulating more production, thus more hiring to make and sell those products. If the stimulus doesn't help Joe Average, he will be buying fewer products, the company will lose profits, and it will have to lay off more people. Now there are even fewer people to buy products, so maybe some more layoffs. It's a cycle that results in the economy staying stagnant.
 
Bottom line as to why trickle down does not work is so simple that a grade school student can understand it. Jobs don't come from giving breaks to the rich. It comes from everybody buying products, thus stimulating more production, thus more hiring to make and sell those products. If the stimulus doesn't help Joe Average, he will be buying fewer products, the company will lose profits, and it will have to lay off more people. Now there are even fewer people to buy products, so maybe some more layoffs. It's a cycle that results in the economy staying stagnant.

That is the "supply" in "supply-side."
 
You obviously didn't read the article that cited the tax bill as a direct incentive to lay off thousands of workers. Trickle-down, my ass.

See my post #8.

However, I found an article from CNBC that said :" ... Kimberly-Clark would join a number of its consumer peers like Unilever and Nestle that have looked to shed underperforming businesses as scrutiny intensifies. ..."

So, are you saying Trump's tax reform caused the business to underperform?!?
 
See my post #8.

However, I found an article from CNBC that said :" ... Kimberly-Clark would join a number of its consumer peers like Unilever and Nestle that have looked to shed underperforming businesses as scrutiny intensifies. ..."

So, are you saying Trump's tax reform caused the business to underperform?!?

Stick to the actual news article posted here that talks about Trump-induced layoffs. The corporatist CNBC will tell you whatever it wants.
 
Stick to the actual news article posted here that talks about Trump-induced layoffs. The corporatist CNBC will tell you whatever it wants.

How do you know these layoffs wouldn't have happened, anyway?
 
Does that mean the tax plan helps a company to stay afloat that otherwise would have folded by now?
If a company doesn't earn profits it doesn't pay taxes, and therefore isn't helped by a tax cut -- but thanks for grasping for straws.
 
Major company after major company, in industry after industry, announcing bonuses, investments, raises, hiring, benefiting millions of workers, all due to the tax reform according to them, but no, you gotta hype that one which doesn't (but apparently will be better-placed to survive the problems it's having).

(Never mind that instant raises aren't how supply-side economics are said to lift all boats.)
“You all just got a lot richer,” Trump reportedly told guests at Mar-a-Lago. But Republicans will nonetheless keep insisting that the corporate tax cut that is the main item in the tax bill is really for the benefit of workers. They will be aided in this claim by some recent corporate announcements of bonuses or wage hikes that they attribute to the tax cut.

It’s nonsense, of course. Think of the motivation: lots of companies are raising wages at least a bit in the face of tight labor markets; pretending that it’s because of the tax cut is a cheap way to curry favor with an administration that has no hesitation about using regulatory and antitrust decisions to reward friends and punish enemies. It’s basically Carrier all over: make a Trump-friendly splash by declaring that he persuaded you to save jobs, then lay off lots of workers after the cameras have moved on.

But there’s a larger point here: even if you believe economic analyses that suggest corporate tax cuts are good for wages, it shouldn’t happen right away. Any trickle-down should come about because the tax cuts lead to higher investment, which leads over time to a larger capital stock – and it’s the increase in the capital stock, which may take many years, that leads to the wage rise. It does not happen the first month after the tax-cut passage.
 
“You all just got a lot richer,” Trump reportedly told guests at Mar-a-Lago. But Republicans will nonetheless keep insisting that the corporate tax cut that is the main item in the tax bill is really for the benefit of workers. They will be aided in this claim by some recent corporate announcements of bonuses or wage hikes that they attribute to the tax cut.

It’s nonsense, of course. Think of the motivation: lots of companies are raising wages at least a bit in the face of tight labor markets; pretending that it’s because of the tax cut is a cheap way to curry favor with an administration that has no hesitation about using regulatory and antitrust decisions to reward friends and punish enemies. It’s basically Carrier all over: make a Trump-friendly splash by declaring that he persuaded you to save jobs, then lay off lots of workers after the cameras have moved on.

But there’s a larger point here: even if you believe economic analyses that suggest corporate tax cuts are good for wages, it shouldn’t happen right away. Any trickle-down should come about because the tax cuts lead to higher investment, which leads over time to a larger capital stock – and it’s the increase in the capital stock, which may take many years, that leads to the wage rise. It does not happen the first month after the tax-cut passage.

I never attributed anything to "trickle down,"at least not the correct understanding of it. It's funny you lecture me on this, yet you quoted me as saying:

(Never mind that instant raises aren't how supply-side economics are said to lift all boats.)

Funny, indeed.
 
That is the "supply" in "supply-side."

Huh?

The post you quoted, and specifically the part right before what you bolded, presented demand as the driving force behind economic activity:

"It comes from everybody buying products, thus stimulating more production, thus more hiring to make and sell those products."
 
Huh?

The post you quoted, and specifically the part right before what you bolded, presented demand as the driving force behind economic activity:

"It comes from everybody buying products, thus stimulating more production, thus more hiring to make and sell those products."

Well THAT's embarrassing.
 
Back
Top Bottom