Trump’s tax cuts kill over 5,000 jobs

[Aquila]

Now, for all those who believe in "trickle down economics"... why didn't this tax cut go to increase wages and benefits for current workers???

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If they had cut these employees without the tax cut, it would have slowed production... and the move to relocate operations would have cut into their profit margin. The tax cut gave them the money needed to meet, and even exceed, projections... without the need of the workers in question. And so, they can cut these workers and thin the labor pool. If they need to rehire, they already got ride of those with seniority. Now they can hire in at entry level wages if necessary. This will save considerable money in the long term. And it is the tax cut that made it possible.

It's really a no brainer.

Cutting employees slows production unless you replace the jobs at a different factory. Tax cut or no tax cut this part is always the same. In other words this is a red herring.

Relocating takes up front money. There's the first point worth considering.

The tax cut gave a lot of up front money. There's the second point worth considering

Cutting jobs and relocating overseas or cutting and rehiring at entry level positions is always cheaper. That's true whether or not there is a tax cut. So red herring again?

So then, you believe they would not have relocated jobs or laid off and rehired if they didn't get a tax cut even though you acknowledge it's cheaper and better for long term profits if they do relocate or layoff and hire?

What interests would they have that would have prevent d them from doing so?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Cutting employees slows production unless you replace the jobs at a different factory. Tax cut or no tax cut this part is always the same. In other words this is a red herring.

Relocating takes up front money. There's the first point worth considering.

The tax cut gave a lot of up front money. There's the second point worth considering

Cutting jobs and relocating overseas or cutting and rehiring at entry level positions is always cheaper. That's true whether or not there is a tax cut. So red herring again?

So then, you believe they would not have relocated jobs or laid off and rehired if they didn't get a tax cut even though you acknowledge it's cheaper and better for long term profits if they do relocate or layoff and hire?

What interests would they have that would have prevent d them from doing so?

So, you mean to tell me the tax cut had nothing to do with it? lol Sure, go ahead and believe that.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, you mean to tell me the tax cut had nothing to do with it? lol Sure, go ahead and believe that.

Until you can answer those questions its you that's in denial.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Until you can answer those questions its you that's in denial.

Well... I thought I did answer those questions. If you don't believe me when I say that the tax cuts helped this company cut jobs and offset the costs projected for restructuring, maybe you'll believe... the company itself.

The company told reporters on a quarterly earnings conference call that the Trump tax cuts would help fund the layoffs and closings.
Chief Financial Officer Maria Henry explained the effects of “tax reform” at the top of the call, first bragging that the tax savings would be the equivalent of a 6 percent increase in earnings.
“We also anticipate ongoing annual cash flow benefits from tax reform,” Henry continued, “that provides us flexibility to allocate significant capital to shareholders,” which is how many companies said they would use their tax windfall, rather than to create jobs.
Henry went on to say that those tax benefits would also fund “our restructuring program over the next few years.”

Also,

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 percentage points, she told analysts during a conference call to discuss recent financial results.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6602a66c010b

The issue is, without this tax cut, they wouldn't feel as ambitious financially to make such a move right now. In essence, they aren't making this move because of actual profit that will offset the move... they are making this move because the government has essentially subsidized their restructuring. As a result, American jobs will be lost and production will be moved overseas for the sake of cheaper labor. It's the same old thing we've seen time and time again.

Isn't this massive tax cut supposed to "trickle down" to the American worker in the production of more jobs, hire wages, and better benefits? I mean, isn't that the theory behind all this? Why doesn't it ever really work on a significant scale?