Monday, January 29, 2018

Very few report bonuses or raises from Republican tax law

Two percent of U.S. adults said they had gotten a raise, bonus or other additional benefits due to the Republican tax law enacted a month ago by President Donald Trump, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday.

Hailed by Republicans as a boost for the middle class, the law is expected to be framed as a win by Trump in his State of the Union address on Tuesday and to be a key theme for both parties headed into November's congressional elections.

While the Internal Revenue Service implements the law, Republicans in the U.S. Congress have been praising businesses, such as Wal-Mart and JPMorgan Chase, for announcing wage and benefit increases in response to the tax plan.

More

The Reuters/Ipsos online poll of 5,254 adults done Jan. 12 to 23 offers insights into public perceptions of the law, which is expected to shape the 2018 midterm elections when all 435 House of Representatives seats and a third of 100 Senate seats will be up for grabs.

About 58 percent of U.S. adults surveyed said that large U.S. corporations or wealthy Americans stand to benefit most from the tax legislation. Just 13 percent said the middle class will benefit the most, the poll showed.

Comments

Not true!

Every single person at Mango Lameo told Cheetolini they got a huge....YUGGEEEE... tax cut.

They are as middle class as it gets for Dotard Donnie.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-29 11:44 AM

Of course very few are getting a raise or bonus. It was known before this passed that it wasn't going to happen, the business leaders said as much. It was doubly known because trickle down doesn't work.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-29 12:37 PM

"because trickle down doesn't work"

Then why is it our continuing policy? That's the real question. We keep doing it and it keeps failing. People who suffer the most just vote for more trickle down ad absurdum.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-29 01:05 PM

Because they're idiots who believe whatever the talking box tells them.

The MO governor is currently trying to implement tax cuts using the same old excuses. It's as if he doesn't know about our neighbor KS and the abysmal failure of those policies there. But I'm sure it will pass and a few years from now people will be shocked when the economy sucks and every government service they utilize is cut or gone.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-29 01:12 PM

"because trickle down doesn't work"
"Then why is it our continuing policy?"

But it does work. For those already rich, it makes them richer.
If you're not getting richer, it's because you made bad choices is life, and you don't deserve to get richer.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-29 01:49 PM

The economy gets a boost without substance. The 1 percent take all the gains. The economy crashes. The 99 percent take the hit. The 99 percent bail out the 1 percent. The 1 percent take all the gains. We repeat.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-29 02:17 PM

Here it is again. Almost no wage earners will benefit.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-29 02:18 PM

Just amazing, before any company has actualized the savings from decreased taxes they haven't taken on new expenses. Shocking I tell ya, just shocking!

#8 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 12:47 AM

You idiots do realize it's not wise to spend money you haven't yet earned right? Could it be that increased wages, higher GDP, and all the other benefits being extolled by the great tax cuts of 2017 haven't actually had enough time to take effect? Companies haven't even filed last year's taxes much less completed a full quarter under the new tax law to see the actual affect on their bottom line. Today's the first day the IRS even started taking tax returns for last year ya dingususes. Let me put it to you this way. What looks better, huh? Would the stock price for company A, having spent every tax dollar saved by increasing wages, perform better than the stock price for company B which keeps wages and expenses the same over the first quarter realizing a substantial 1st quarter of 2018 profit? Ooooo. Trippy!

#9 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 12:57 AM

#9 | Posted by gavaster at 201

Either your very young or you never learned a gahd damn thing from history and you're a idiot

#10 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2018-01-30 05:44 AM

#9 Should I look to see if you posted the same thing in the threads RoC is puts up to tout the announcements of raises and bonuses? It should be easy to look them up. There is maybe 5? Most temporary and announced far before the tax hike. Many accompanied by massive layoffs and offshoring of jobs.

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-30 10:39 AM

#10 - PUNCHYPOSSUM & #11 - BRUCEBANNER

lol. Such partisan BS. It's only okay if it supports your view or attacks your enemy. Got it. Don't interject logic into anything. I mean, this is the exact same BS Reagan pulled. Wait. Except, individual income taxes, the primary source of government revenue, were up to 70% and then slashed by some 40% eventually to 38% and the business tax rates were cut 15%. So this minor adjustment 2-5% adjustment to individual tax rates and massive 40% change to corporate tax rates will produce the exact same results as the reverse did. Come on. I mean, besides the fact that they are both tax cuts nearly nothing is the same as the Reagan tax cuts.

#12 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 01:22 PM

My company gave all employees 10 stock options, currently worth $1500.

They also increased our weekly accrued PTO percentage, and backdated it to April 2016.

I picked up a weeks vacation. Total bonuses = $3000

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-01-30 04:20 PM

...make that April 2017

#14 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-01-30 04:20 PM

#13 exactly. Companies can act.

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-30 04:33 PM

and all the other benefits being extolled by the great tax cuts of 2017 haven't actually had enough time to take effect?

This!

Even more to the point, all the unintended consequences that will ultimately be extolled by the great tax cuts of 2017 haven't actually had enough time to take effect.

History has not been kind to trickle-down economics. What's the reasoning we should embrace to convince ourselves otherwise this time around?

#16 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-01-30 04:34 PM

#16 - RSTYBEACH11

Another year, another deficit. It's never a question of if we are going to spend more than we generate in tax revenue, it's always how much more. When was the last time our debt actually decreased? Oh, that's right, it was about the time my grand parents were starting to have children, 60 years ago. While it'd be nice to blame it all on one party you don't go 60 years without a decrease in the actual debt without both parties being complicit.

#17 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 06:04 PM

#17 intellectually dishonest comment. Democratic leaders reduce spending. GOP leaders increase it.

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-30 06:08 PM

It's pretty easy to not spend more than we take in. Cut spending. No one is willing to though. When was the last time it actually happened? For instance, in 1960 the Fed spent $844 per capita. Today it's over $21,000 per year. Calculate for inflation and that's still a 350% increase in spending per capita. Tell me what benefits we've received as citizens over the past 60 years that justify the increased spending. I'll wait.

#19 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 06:58 PM

Tell me what benefits we've received as citizens over the past 60 years that justify the increased spending. I'll wait.
#19 | Posted by gavaster

An extra 14-16 years of life per human.

you really are dumb.

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-30 07:01 PM

--Democratic leaders reduce spending.

Certainly not in California.

Are the Dems still promoting a new middle-class entitlement program, free college tuition, with a $100 billion price tag per year?

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-30 07:04 PM

#20 - TRUTHURTS

Are you saying government spending is causing an increase in lifespan or increased lifespans are the cause of increased government spending?

#22 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 07:24 PM

#20 - TRUTHURTS
Are you saying government spending is causing an increase in lifespan or increased lifespans are the cause of increased government spending?
#22 | Posted by gavaster

a little of column a and a little of column b

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-30 07:30 PM

Shortcut for you.

A lot has changed in 57 years,

Greater access to healthcare
Better medical care
More education
Larger social safety net
Better environmental protections
Better safety regulations

Most of these changes have been forced on conservatives by liberal governments, leading to a healthier and longer life span.

Which of course, results in more government expenditures as people live longer.

#24 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-30 07:34 PM

SS is fine. Medicare is the bigger culprit running year over year deficits and only collecting a small portion of it's necessary expenditures through taxes. Medicare taxes need to be drastically increased by removing the income cap and possibly applying the tax to corporate profits as well to make it balanced. But you STILL have huge deficits from the military who's budget is outrageously inflated. Fix those two things and we're at a balanced budget, decreasing national debt, and financially stable. But neither party is willing to reign the military in.

#25 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 07:52 PM

#24 - TRUTH

And yet life expectancy has declined two years in a row, we are falling behind in education globally, our healthcare system sucks the life and money from the people, and the middle class is being decimated. Environmental protections and safety regulations shouldn't be costing us that much money.

#26 | Posted by gavaster at 2018-01-30 08:09 PM

"Then why is it our continuing policy?"

Because it is still what prouduces the best possible outcome. Median household income is at the higest point in recoded history. And while many people might be not be getting bonuses, if you compare the number given out in previous years, it's a lot. And they're being given to people who traditionally haven't gotten bonuses.

The alternative is a centrally controlled economy where the government determines how created wealth is distrubted within society. That sounds OK until you consider that the people who are creating this wealth have a vote as well. And they can choose not to create new wealth at all.

When Allende took control in Chile, the immediate response was an upswing in consumer spending and growth. That lasted for about a year, until that initial wealth was burned through. But Allende's policies had a tragic effect on the economy, as industrial and agircultural input bottomed out after many were nationalized. Chile went from being a net exporter to importing nearly everything it needed to survive. This happened because those economic Centers of Gravity that had formerly been the engine behind wealth creation stopped creating. A similar phenomenon occurred in VZ under Chavez.

For a progressive policy to actually contribute to the sorts of economic goals I think you're asking for, they MUST have the support of those Centers of Gravity. And therein lies your greatest challenge.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-30 08:55 PM

#27 Who cares? Tell me why median household income is a measure of anything.

#28 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-30 10:07 PM

fred.stlouisfed.org

Here is some data for your empty claims.

#29 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-30 10:09 PM

"Tell me why median household income is a measure of anything."

It's been used as a measure of our economy for a very long time.

And if it dropped substantially would you argue with folks who used it as a measure of something?

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-30 10:54 PM

"And yet life expectancy has declined two years in a row"

That's not due to overall declining life expectancy, it's the opioid crisis. Macrostatistically...a blip.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 11:01 PM

"Median household income is at the higest point in recoded history. "

Yeah...it finally edged above what it was in 1999. We're finally better off than we were in 1999.
qz.com

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-30 11:06 PM

And if it dropped substantially would you argue with folks who used it as a measure of something?

#30 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-01-30 10:54 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Absolutely.

I just listened to the state of the union address that told me this country was a toilet.

#33 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-31 12:13 AM

"Here is some data for your empty claims."

You literally just provided source data for my claim. Thanks. I guess it's not so empty anymore, is it.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-31 06:57 AM

"Yeah...it finally edged above what it was in 1999. We're finally better off than we were in 1999."

Economically, we're actually better off now than at any point in history.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-31 06:59 AM

Life is more than the median income. This is especially true for societies where wealth inequality is astronomical and social safety nets are filled with holes.

#36 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-31 08:56 AM

"Economically, we're actually better off now than at any point in history."

And barely ahead of 1999.

Why are you pretending that fact doesn't matter, when median income was YOUR barometer?

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-31 09:19 AM

It's median income because he heard it from someone else. Just yesterday he was measuring our success against living in a cave.

#38 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-31 09:21 AM

#26 you can thank the opioid epidemic and the GOP for those lovely facts.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-31 03:34 PM

"Life is more than the median income. This is especially true for societies where wealth inequality is astronomical and social safety nets are filled with holes."

The fact that you live here in the US, where by the virtue of the fact that you draw breath-someone is going to take care of you, allows you the luxury to whine about the fact that someone is making more money than you, even while you are making more money than most everyone on earth.

"Why are you pretending that fact doesn't matter, when median income was YOUR barometer?"

1999 was the previous high point. It's been overcome by progress. I'm not sure what you're asking?

"It's median income because he heard it from someone else. Just yesterday he was measuring our success against living in a cave."

I can measure your success against virtually anything...and you come out as the winner. The top 1%, as it were. And you're bitching because you're not in the top .1%...or something.

What a crybaby.

"#26 you can thank the opioid epidemic and the GOP for those lovely facts."

What you mean is that you can thank the American people.

If it were up to me, buying an Oxy would be almost as easy as buying a beer or a joint.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-31 07:58 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Florida Governor: Those Under Age 21 Should Not Own Guns (281 comments)

3 More Deputies On Scene Did Not Enter School (90 comments)

Texas School Will Punish Any Student Who Protests (86 comments)

The AR-15 Inflicts Devastatingly Different Wounds (79 comments)

House Intel Committee Releases Democratic Memo (74 comments)

Parkland School Cop Didn't Enter Building (69 comments)

Gates Expected to Plead Guilty, Help Mueller (43 comments)

Teacher Bonuses for Guns But Not Education (38 comments)

Rice 'Justifiably Concerned' Sharing Intel with Trump Administration (31 comments)