Financial News

[Dick Allen]

Eight years after Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy filing signaled the start of the financial crisis, the U.S. has posted the worst salary recovery among developed Group of 20, or G-20 countries, according to executive search firm Korn Ferry's Hay Group unit.

 

U.S. salaries have fallen 3.1% after adjusting for inflation since Lehman’s bankruptcy on Sept. 15, 2008, the study says. That’s the worst among the G-20, which also includes the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea.

 

America’s poor performance can partly be traced to its preponderance of jobs in low-wage sectors such as retail, restaurants and hotels, and healthcare, says Benjamin Frost, a Korn Ferry product manager.

 

But even within entry-level jobs — a category that includes clerks, call center representatives, carpenters and production line supervisors — the U.S. fares worst, with salaries falling 14.8%.

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/0...rowth/89924144/

That is because of the corporate tax rate. Everyone is getting a $4k raise. Thanks Trump. No one has done more in less time. Truly a Presidential icon in less than one year.

[caulfield12]

Let’s put it another way.

 

With America, Europe and Japan all suffering from aging populations with a narrowing middle class, who are US corporations going to sell to in the future in order to maintain their profits?

 

Apple was recently gaining around 81% of all the net profit in the world mobile phone market...yet that share is slowly being eroded, where the Chinese are making high quality phones with better cameras at 1/3rd the price. Can Americans even afford the latest iphone? Another example, China will have their own passenger jets so they don’t have to buy from Boeing or Airbus.

 

Essentially, the future world is shaping up as a battle between the US (Amazon) and China (Alibaba, Ten Cent, JD) to sell to India, Indonesia and the rest of the developing world. The other main advantage for the US (beyond Apple and Amazon) is Silicon Valley/intellectual creativity and freedom. Of course, the HUGE problem is we have no money left for infrastructure (Trump admin will eventually argue for privatization), higher education, social services and dealing with the opioid crisis. For the second year in a row, we’re the only developing country with a declining life expectancy, largely due to the drug crisis/hollowing out of the middle class and obesity. Oh, let’s not forget highest percentage of incarceration in the developed world, too.

 

And what signs have we seen that American leaders are actually capable of coming up with a fair/truly bipartisan solution to the impending crisis that increased defense spending, debt payments and Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid growth are leading towards, the infamous financial cliff?

Edited December 22, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Ugh, of course I got out and there was a full recovery yesterday

[ptatc]

So you really don't care if it separates the haves and have nots in society and if people aren't rich enough to be sick, well, sorry, you're screwed. And if you aren't rich enough to pay a real lawyer to get you off when you commit crimes, too bad, you pay for a bad one who can't get you off when you didn't.

This has nothing to do with their % of income and paying taxes. It sounds like you don't want them to have money because they have money.

 

The things you stated here are problems with the individual systems, We know the medical system is unfair. There just needs to be a compromise on a way to improve it.

[ptatc]

Is it fair in your eyes that over the last 30 years the share of income and the share of wealth for the top 0.1% has gone up while both have gone down for the remaining 90% of the population?

How the people came about their income is not an aspect of how they are taxed. This is a separate issue and a complex one.

 

They way people make the most money is to invest or start businesses. You obviously need money to do these. So the system is set up for that people with money can make the most. This is more of the issue. How do you get capital available for people to do these things. But you also need the desire to to do it. I personally have had many opportunities to manage or start businesses in the physical therapy field. However, I've always just wanted to treat patients and be there for my family whenever I wanted to. A guy who wanted me to start a business with him in the 80's sold Athletico for 400 million a year or 2 ago. Think where I would be if I did work with him.

 

So is it fair? Probably not. But i don't think the answer is to tax that group so the 1% group pays even more for everyone else because they already pay most of everything.

[caulfield12]

How the people came about their income is not an aspect of how they are taxed. This is a separate issue and a complex one.

 

They way people make the most money is to invest or start businesses. You obviously need money to do these. So the system is set up for that people with money can make the most. This is more of the issue. How do you get capital available for people to do these things. But you also need the desire to to do it. I personally have had many opportunities to manage or start businesses in the physical therapy field. However, I've always just wanted to treat patients and be there for my family whenever I wanted to. A guy who wanted me to start a business with him in the 80's sold Athletico for 400 million a year or 2 ago. Think where I would be if I did work with him.

 

So is it fair? Probably not. But i don't think the answer is to tax that group so the 1% group pays even more for everyone else because they already pay most of everything.

 

So then why not just give every American household $12,000 back? Wouldn’t that be fairer? It would cost exactly the same as this tax cut.

 

Wouldn’t that at least give all those in the middle class more of an opportunity to pay down debt, invest in education or start a small business? All studies would back up empirically that the middle class and poor are much more likely to inject cash directly back into the economy.

 

They could have repaired every deficient bridge in America, for example. Continued to stabilize the health care market instead of allowing those costs to pass down to everyone who was old or sick (the expected 10% increased will negate most or all of the tax cut benefits for the majority of Americans). Treated the opioid crisis. All of these would have led to greater than 0.8% GDP growth over the next decade. Scholarships for junior colleges. Research money for AI, AR and VR, as well as alternative energy vehicles.

 

They chose instead to go with their corporate overlords...who have spent $1.63 billion on lobbying so far this year.

Edited December 23, 2017 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

So then why not just give every American household $12,000 back? Wouldn’t that be fairer? It would cost exactly the same as this tax cut.

 

Wouldn’t that at least give all those in the middle class more of an opportunity to pay down debt, invest in education or start a small business? All studies would back up empirically that the middle class and poor are much more likely to inject cash directly back into the economy.

 

They could have repaired every deficient bridge in America, for example. Continued to stabilize the health care market instead of allowing those costs to pass down to everyone who was old or sick (the expected 10% increased will negate most or all of the tax cut benefits for the majority of Americans). Treated the opioid crisis. All of these would have led to greater than 0.8% GDP growth over the next decade. Scholarships for junior colleges. Research money for AI, AR and VR, as well as alternative energy vehicles.

 

They chose instead to go with their corporate overlords...who have spent $1.63 billion on lobbying so far this year.

That's what I don't get, if all these things are actually designed for the middle clas, why not give it to them directly?

[ptatc]

So then why not just give every American household $12,000 back? Wouldn’t that be fairer? It would cost exactly the same as this tax cut.

 

Wouldn’t that at least give all those in the middle class more of an opportunity to pay down debt, invest in education or start a small business? All studies would back up empirically that the middle class and poor are much more likely to inject cash directly back into the economy.

 

They could have repaired every deficient bridge in America, for example. Continued to stabilize the health care market instead of allowing those costs to pass down to everyone who was old or sick (the expected 10% increased will negate most or all of the tax cut benefits for the majority of Americans). Treated the opioid crisis. All of these would have led to greater than 0.8% GDP growth over the next decade. Scholarships for junior colleges. Research money for AI, AR and VR, as well as alternative energy vehicles.

 

They chose instead to go with their corporate overlords...who have spent $1.63 billion on lobbying so far this year.

I never said that the tax cut was a good idea. In fact if it increases the debt as much as they say, it's probably not a good idea. My whole point has been that adding more tax to a given group is a bad idea as well.

[ptatc]

That's what I don't get, if all these things are actually designed for the middle clas, why not give it to them directly?

Because giving something for nothing is not a good idea.

 

The whole tax structure is to generate revenue for the government. If you give something from one, you need to take it from another.

 

The premise should be to create more full time jobs for everyone. i like the idea someone put out about linking tax cuts to businesses having certain numbers of 40hrs/week jobs, not the "new" full time of 30hrs/week many are doing. These need to be done in a way to encourage businesses to stay in the US and thrive here.

 

Look at Illinois for example. So many people are leaving the state that Illinois dropped down from 5th to 6th. We need to find a way to keep people and businesses to stay to build the tax base not decreases it.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Because giving something for nothing is not a good idea.

 

The whole tax structure is to generate revenue for the government. If you give something from one, you need to take it from another.

 

The premise should be to create more full time jobs for everyone. i like the idea someone put out about linking tax cuts to businesses having certain numbers of 40hrs/week jobs, not the "new" full time of 30hrs/week many are doing. These need to be done in a way to encourage businesses to stay in the US and thrive here.

 

Look at Illinois for example. So many people are leaving the state that Illinois dropped down from 5th to 6th. We need to find a way to keep people and businesses to stay to build the tax base not decreases it.

People have been leaving northern states since the invention of this thing called "air conditioning".

[ptatc]

People have been leaving northern states since the invention of this thing called "air conditioning".

Not at the rate Illinois has seen in recent years. It's pretty well documented that Illinois, Cook county specifically, has seen a trend with people leaving moreso that any other time. Cook county had the greatest decrease in population than any other county is the US.

[caulfield12]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/26/news/econo...ains/index.html

 

Those first 3-4 paragraphs are a pretty compelling argument why tax cuts aren’t going to be a great boost to consumer spending...most of the growth will take place on the corporate profitability side of the ledger. Don’t see how that’s going to increase job/wage growth, since productivity and salary gains have been decoupled since the early 1980’s.

Edited December 26, 2017 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

Ugh, of course I got out and there was a full recovery yesterday

LOL, always buy more at the trench

[RockRaines]

Not at the rate Illinois has seen in recent years. It's pretty well documented that Illinois, Cook county specifically, has seen a trend with people leaving moreso that any other time. Cook county had the greatest decrease in population than any other county is the US.

keep in mind that Cook County has a larger population than about 19 states.

[caulfield12]

Apple’s repatriated earnings unlikely to go towards additional hiring or wage hikes...not stated is the disappointing status of worldwide IPhone 8 sales looming over the company.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/27/technology...form/index.html

[caulfield12]

Only a small slice of corporate America has shared tax savings with workers so far

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/02/investing/...rump/index.html

[caulfield12]

https://mobile.twitter.com/cnbc/status/9483...ctivity.Message

 

Southwest is giving all of its employees bonuses and upping their charitable donations after tax cuts.

 

Did SW give $4.9 billion? Because that’s how much charities are expected to LOSE in donations due to the new tax bill. A 27.2% reduction in funding.

 

 

Charities in the Chicago area and across the country are bracing for the potential loss of billions of dollars in annual contributions as a result of a tax overhaul plan from congressional Republicans that would eliminate the incentive to donate for nearly all Americans.

 

The proposed House bill, pitched as the “Cut Cut Cut Act” by President Donald Trump but officially named the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, includes a provision that would nearly double the standard deduction to $12,200 for an individual and $24,400 for a married couple.

 

Raising the standard deduction would reduce the number of taxpayers who itemize deductions — including charitable donations — from the current 30 percent to 5 percent, experts say.

 

Combined with a decrease in the top marginal tax rate, the disincentive to itemize would reduce charitable giving by $4.9 billion to $13.1 billion annually, according to a May study by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-...1109-story.html

Edited January 3, 2018 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

I wonder if the coal miners will be getting a $1000 before tax bonus.

[Balta1701]

The head of Intel was informed of the 2 major security flaws announced this week sometime last year. Intel lost $10+ billion in stock value this week due to this release.

 

Their CEO "revised his trading strategy" in early October and he was able to sell off $39 million of their stock in November. He now only holds whatever the minimum amount of stock is that a person in that job is required to hold.

 

I'm sure these are totally unrelated just like in the Equifax case. I'm also equally sure about the likelihood of consequences if they were related.

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/tru...tive/index.html

Trump trails Obama in performance of stock market during their first years

[Texsox]

You give money back to the poor and working class and it always moves up hill to business owners. Give money to the rich and hope if flows down hill.

 

It seems like letting the working folks touch the money for a moment isn't such a bad thing.

 

I would love to have a law that when taxes are lowered they must list a corresponding list of true cuts in spending.

AND

When adding an expense, either the tax increase to pay for it, or again the actual spending cut that is happening to pay for it.

 

 

[Balta1701]

You give money back to the poor and working class and it always moves up hill to business owners. Give money to the rich and hope if flows down hill.

 

It seems like letting the working folks touch the money for a moment isn't such a bad thing.

 

I would love to have a law that when taxes are lowered they must list a corresponding list of true cuts in spending.

AND

When adding an expense, either the tax increase to pay for it, or again the actual spending cut that is happening to pay for it.

FWIW, this would totally sabotage the government's ability to respond to a 2008-like economy wide implosion.

[Balta1701]

Oh, and following those bonuses in late December, massive layoffs from AT&T.

[caulfield12]

Or there would have been no recovery from the Great Depression...a balanced budget amendment sounds fine, in theory, but would never work when private markets are frozen/broken.

[Jack Parkman]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/26/news/econo...ains/index.html

 

Those first 3-4 paragraphs are a pretty compelling argument why tax cuts aren’t going to be a great boost to consumer spending...most of the growth will take place on the corporate profitability side of the ledger. Don’t see how that’s going to increase job/wage growth, since productivity and salary gains have been decoupled since the early 1980’s.

I think this is why our corporate overlords have given people the proverbial middle finger since then. They figured out that increasing salary only increases productivity so much, and so they are asking people to do more work with less benefits and salary, because they don't get anything out of it with the way things were working. The only people who seem to be "getting ahead" or even making ends meet these days are those who put their career above everything else in life. It is their way of taking control of the masses back. People were actually being happy, having fun while not working, being able to take nice vacations, being able to afford nice things, etc. They are saying "No. f*** You. You can't have those things. They are mine and you can't have them."