Yep, that tax cut sure was for the middle class....

[halfmanhalfbronco]

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I don't think there was much OMG LIBERAL BIAS in that breakdown. The MarketWatch article is interesting as well.... though they're owned by News Corp, who also own Fox.  

I'm not claiming to be a tax expert either... I've only said what is very obvious. Corporations are gaining the largest benefits from this tax bill, and what the middle class are getting pales in comparison. Time will tell on whether or not this will really have a net positive effect on the economy, or if corporations are going to pocket the savings. The fact that companies are handing out these bonuses while simultaneously laying people off is also a public fact. 

Correlation does not equal causation.

Most middle class families generally have shares in corporations.  If what you are saying is true than shareholders should do well, right?

\

[NVGiant]

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Most middle class families generally have shares in corporations.  If what you are saying is true than shareholders should do well, right?

\

I don't know that this is true. It might be, but if it is, I bet it's closer to 50-50 than what most people would guess.

[retrofade]

7 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Lay-offs will happen either way in spite of the tax reform bill NOT BECAUSE of it.  Quite frankly, that’s a stupid assertion.

I never said that the two were directly related. I said that the layoffs occurred, and they largely offset the bonuses. If I seemed to imply otherwise, it certainly wasn't my intention.

[NorCalCoug]

Just now, retrofade said:

I never said that the two were directly related. I said that the layoffs occurred, and they largely offset the bonuses. If I seemed to imply otherwise, it certainly wasn't my intention.

Lay-offs occurred during every moment in the history of this country (except for 2008-2016 for some of you).  To think that they are intended to or will stop because of a tax reform bill is silly.  And yes, you’ve implied causation on this thread many times.

[retrofade]

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Most middle class families generally have shares in corporations.  If what you are saying is true than shareholders should do well, right?

\

If I implied that correlation did equal causation, then it was a mistake on my part. Layoffs happen regardless, but it doesn't change the fact that the layoffs, especially for AT&T, did a lot to offset the amount that they were giving out in bonuses. 

My whole premise is that the tax bill, and the subsequent lowering of the corporate tax rate, isn't at all guaranteeing that companies will hire more people --- which is a huge part of the spin the right used when they were passing it. 

[retrofade]

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

Lay-offs occurred during every moment in the history of this country (except for 2008-2016 for some of you).  To think that they are intended to or will stop because of a tax reform bill is silly.  And yes, you’ve implied causation on this thread many times.

 

I never said any of that, nor did I imply what you're claiming. If it came across that way, it certainly wasn't intended. 

[NorCalCoug]

1 minute ago, retrofade said:

 

I never said any of that, nor did I imply what you're claiming. If it came across that way, it certainly wasn't intended. 

Several have called out your silly implication the last couple of days.  Only now are you backtracking on it.

[NVGiant]

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Most middle class families generally have shares in corporations.  If what you are saying is true than shareholders should do well, right?

\

I just looked it up. I didn't immediately find numbers specific to the middle class, but a few surveys show that a slim majority of adults don't own any stock: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stock-market-survey-20150409-story.html. I think it would be safe to assume roughly half of the middle class own stock, and the rate goes higher the farther up the income and education ladder one climbs.

[retrofade]

1 minute ago, NorCalCoug said:

Several have called out your silly implication the last couple of days.  Only now are you backtracking on it.

You have a weird understanding of time. I posted this thread yesterday. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

Just now, NVGiant said:

I just looked it up. I didn't immediately find numbers specific to the middle class, but a few surveys show that a slim majority of adults don't own any stock: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stock-market-survey-20150409-story.html. I think it would be safe to assume roughly half of the middle class own stock, and the rate goes higher the farther up the income and education ladder one climbs.

Again it depends on how we are classifying middle class.  If we are considering 250k household of 3 incomes in liberal population centers to be middle class I would assume that number is much higher.

If we are going by pew researches definition of middle class I would agree that 50% is a pretty safe bet.

[NorCalCoug]

3 minutes ago, retrofade said:

You have a weird understanding of time. I posted this thread yesterday. 

Not arguing semantics with you.  You can deny what you’ve stated all you want but your implication was clear and several folks called you out on it over the course of a couple days (yesterday, today...  couple).  

[NVGiant]

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Again it depends on how we are classifying middle class.  If we are considering 250k household of 3 incomes in liberal population centers to be middle class I would assume that number is much higher.

If we are going by pew researches definition of middle class I would agree that 50% is a pretty safe bet.

Sure. But my Googling skills aren't good enough to find surveys that don't exist!

[retrofade]

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

Not arguing semantics with you.  You can deny what you’ve stated all you want but your implication was clear and several folks called you out on it.  

I've been kinda busy for the last day after I posted that. Again, if it came across that way, it certainly wasn't intentional. You can believe me or not, I honestly couldn't give two shits about what you think about what I said. I know what I meant, and I'm clarifying it now. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

7 minutes ago, retrofade said:

If I implied that correlation did equal causation, then it was a mistake on my part. Layoffs happen regardless, but it doesn't change the fact that the layoffs, especially for AT&T, did a lot to offset the amount that they were giving out in bonuses. 

My whole premise is that the tax bill, and the subsequent lowering of the corporate tax rate, isn't at all guaranteeing that companies will hire more people --- which is a huge part of the spin the right used when they were passing it. 

It seemed like you were implying it, thanks for the clarification.

It might also be true that without the lowering of the corporate tax rate the lay offs would have been far larger.  People who look into this and make projections for a living don't have solid answers at this time, so I agree with you and @NVGiant that we won't have an answer really for a few years.  I am not going to get worked up about it either way.

[NorCalCoug]

More middle class non-help...  Walmart jumping in on the action now.  Min wage hikes across the board (1.4M US employees), bonuses, and adoption help benefits that are 100% and certifiably due to tax reform - no overreaching and partisan conjecture or implication there.  I’m also sure there are some layoffs going on somewhere in that huge company.  Is the middle class sick of this shit yet????

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/walmart-minimum-wage-increase/index.html?category=companies

[Jackrabbit]

Interesting that libs said the original stimulus wasnt big enough.   It could have been doubled with no affect.  Now we have walmart setting a higher starting wage and bennies, with bonuses to those eligible.  This economy is going to take off and the govt gets a bigger cut.   A liberal nightmare.

[SDSUfan]

22 hours ago, NVGiant said:

It'll be an interesting study as the year goes on. Most people, even in the higher income tax states like mine, will see some benefit. But in places like California and Oregon, those benefits for taxpayers with a middle class income will most certainly be diminished to the point where they are almost unrecognizable. I know for me, who would be considered upper middle class, it will be borderline. I expect to see a few hundred extra dollars for the year. Nothing that would change anything in my finances.

How will it all play? I don't know.  For many reasons, including this one, 2018 will be one of the most interesting mid-term elections that I can remember.

I did a little quick math and determined that if you make about $175K after pre-tax distributions,  removal of the state tax deduction above $10K will have no effect. Given that, I think most folks here in the People's Socialist "Democratic" Republic of Aztlan will do pretty well.

[NorCalCoug]

11 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Interesting that libs said the original stimulus wasnt big enough.   It could have been doubled with no affect.  Now we have walmart setting a higher starting wage and bennies, with bonuses to those eligible.  This economy is going to take off and the govt gets a bigger cut.   A liberal nightmare.

We'll see how it plays out...  it's definitely not going to hurt.  But to suggest that the middle class isn't getting much of a benefit here (as many do) is partisan blinders at its best.  The vast majority of the middle class is getting a decent reduction in their tax burden and now we're seeing that millions more are benefiting in the form of employer "Trump Tax Bonuses", wage increases, increased benefits, etc.

[madmartigan]

4 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

More middle class non-help...  Walmart jumping in on the action now.  Min wage hikes across the board (1.4M US employees), bonuses, and adoption help benefits that are 100% and certifiably due to tax reform - no overreaching and partisan conjecture or implication there.  I’m also sure there are some layoffs going on somewhere in that huge company.  Is the middle class sick of this shit yet????

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/walmart-minimum-wage-increase/index.html?category=companies

Walmart is busy these days

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/walmart-suddenly-closes-sams-club-stores-2018-1

[mugtang]

20 minutes ago, madmartigan said:

Walmart is busy these days

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/walmart-suddenly-closes-sams-club-stores-2018-1

Maybe @retrofade is right?