Not arguing, just kindly understanding eachothers’ opinions :)
4 Likes
Got to factor in that these $1000 bonuses are considered cash award and not part of the salary. What this means is that federal and state withholding takes more of the money from this award than a normal paycheck. So about ⅓ of the money or so is put back into the government. Folks aren’t pocketing the whole $1000. Its a win for the workers, a win for the companies, and a win for the government.
6 Likes
Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the government to be using that lost money in tax income on things like infrastructure, reducing the deficit, etc… which would help everyone, rather putting most of that money in the pocket of executives?
They [government] could use the money I suppose for whatever they’d like. Need to remember that this tax benefit isn’t only helping out airlines. Walmart, Home Depot, and a lot of other big name corporations are doing this. Last number I read was somewhere in the range of 3 million people were going to receive the $1000 bonus. And I’d assume the number of folks receiving the bonus will continue to grow.
2 Likes
Let’s also not forget the amount of companies increasing their minimum wage due to corporate tax cuts, too.
1 Like
Yes, but those companies are pulling company benefits as a result. Like Danman said, its a double edge sword. 🤷🏼♂️
1 Like
I’m not saying it’s not going to help workers. I’m just saying that the government could be directly giving that money to people rather than trusting companies to do the right thing. You could have the same effect, but no risk, no?
The government cut the corporate tax rate. They didn’t give companies millions of dollars to scatter around. These bonus are an effect of the government cutting the tax rate that are imposed on companies. These are the companies executives deciding to give these bonuses. Not the governments doing. Hope that clears up some confusion.
3 Likes
The amount each citizen gets back per tax dollar in the USA is very little because of inefficient ways of spending tax payer money and really a tax cut is nearly a more efficient way maybe in the USA’s situation to actually give better quality of life to people.
I’m this case I belive relying on the market to give more then the goverment to the people is a better choice.
Then that raises the question why was it necessary for them to lower the Corporate tax rate? Companies already pay around 20% rate when you factor in deductions. I agree it should be lowered to help small business growth. But then why should the mega companies already making billions in profit get a decrease as well?
I’m not going to completely disagree. It’s a two way street. If we had effective leaders running congress, it would be an easier choice.
The whole system is messed up per person in the USA pays more for healthcare then nations like New Zealand , Sweden , Norway ect. But get a worse healthcare system due to inefficient systems and lack of regulation on private healthcare.
1 Like
Is it really a win for the workers? Sure, they get an extra $1000 in their pocket, but what does that really entail for them? We’ve long been told that tax cuts would result in increases in wages and raises for people, and a one-time bonus is nowhere near the same thing. Getting a one-time bonus is like getting upgraded to first class because of overbooking: it’s great to see when it happens, but in the long run, it’s inconsequential for most. I’d love to see some real increases in wages and not these temporary increases.
And on the same note, is it good for companies? Of course! They get billions more in savings that they redistribute mostly to stockholders and themselves, using it for their own gain (think buybacks, decreasing debt, or buying new aircraft). For companies that try and predict the amount they’ll save by taking away an olive from the first class salad, this is a lot.
And is it good for the government? As much as you say that this bonus will improve the government overall, this, once again, is a short-term thing. An extra $333/person resulting from this bonus isn’t going to help the government in the long run – sure, it’ll increase taxes this year, but what about the next? This is nowhere near enough to reduce the planned deficit that the tax cuts are supposed to cause.
I don’t mean to argue, I just mean to question the idea that this is really a “win-win” for all. The workers see a temporary bump in their wages that won’t help them in the future, the government sees drastic cuts in the amount they receive, and the companies do nothing but save money that they don’t need when they already have record profits.
AA has 113,000 employees, so that’s at least $113,000,000 in bonuses.
2 Likes
Honestly not sure. Lowering the tax rate was because the Trump Administration did the math to figure out that they were able to cut the tax rate, benefitting millions while further improving the economy of the country. As for the small business growth, that’s where its a grey area for my knowledge as I haven’t done much research on that aspect.
2 Likes
And 900000 at least to the company…
I’ll admit, I’m no expert either :)
I’ve always felt the corporate tax rate should be bracketed so large companies can pay more, which they can afford, and small businesses can pay less and grow.
“boost worker pay”
“to get raises”
raising to $15 an hour.
Don’t say that companies aren’t raising their wages because of this…
2 Likes
the 1.9 billion figure for the quarter is also wrong, that is AA’s Net Profit for 2017,
Q4 Revenue was $425 million, Net Profit $258 million
Source: http://phoenix.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=117098&p=irol-newsarticle&ID=2328398
Fair enough my error (was looking at the money they made not factoring expenses). That still doesn’t change the fact the good majority of that money is going to the company.