Tax Cuts Didn’t Help These Harley-Davidson Workers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Mac'nCheese, May 22, 2018.

  1. Mac'nCheese Suspended

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #1
    “In September 2017, House Speaker Paul Ryan traveled to a Harley-Davidson plant in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, to tout the Republican tax bill, which President Trump would sign later that year. “Tax reform can put American manufacturers and American companies like Harley-Davidson on a much better footing to compete in the global economy and keep jobs here in America,” Ryan told workers and company leaders.
    Four months later and 500 miles away in Kansas City, Missouri, 800 workers at a Harley-Davidson factory were told they would lose their jobs when the plant closed its doors and shifted operations to a facility in York, Pennsylvania a net loss of 350 jobs. Workers and union representatives say they didn’t see it coming.

    Just days later, the company announced a dividend increase and a stock buybackplan to repurchase 15 million of its shares, valued at about $696 million.“


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...rley-davidson-tax-buyback-kansas-city-factory
     
  2. TheHateMachine macrumors 6502a

    TheHateMachine

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Santa Fe, TX
    #2
    B-b-b-but people got their 100-1000 dollar bonuses!
     
  3. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #3
    Did anyone think these tax cuts were anything but crumbs for the workers and more millions and billions for the elite? The only trickle down the middle class will see is the piss they shower on them while telling them its rain.
     
  4. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #4
    Trickle down doesn't work but makes good fanfare in the press. The only way to have effective tax cuts in any society is to absolutely hammer the rich (e.g. anybody making $100k) with a 95% supertax. Then give generous tax cuts to the poor who earn less than $100k.
     
  5. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #5
    You think someone making 100K is rich? lol
     
  6. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #6
    Yes, absolutely. Anybody with that high an income are earning more money than those earning less.
     
  7. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #7
    People living in NYC, California, Mass making 100K don't feel "rich", trust me. Anyone who thinks 100K is "rich" is likely under the age of 30 and naive. Then you want to tax them at a 95% rate? Go move to Venezuela if you want that kind of system, they're doing great!
     
  8. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #8
    Whose problem is that? Their outgoings are irrelevant at a federal level. Tax them at this level will cause deflation in those areas in the long run. It's a win-win for all.
     
  9. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #9
    While this post is absolutely laughable, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone, considering this almost as laughable post...
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #10
    Some people did. Those people were clearly wrong.

    Rich is a relatively subjective term so I don't think there's much of an argument to call $100K rich or not.

    But keep in mind that in the U.S., the median income in 2016 was $57,617, rising to $67,739 in California and dropping to $41,754 in Mississippi. (In Puerto Rico, the median is around $20,000.)

    So, if a family is dragging down $100,000 in Miss, they're making 200 percent more than the median family of four.

    If that family is getting $100,000 in San Francisco, they're just above the margin ($96,667) for median incomes.
     
  11. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #11
    There is no argument because making 100K doesn't make you rich. A "six figure income" ain't what it use to be. Income levels are going to change based on location and it's impossible to account for such variables when it comes to federal taxes. They aren't a factor when calculating the poverty level. Yes there are some locations that cost more to live, if there were enough jobs in Mississippi that paid $100+K then you'd have a lot of people flocking down there to live like kings until the cost of living there became what it is in California. That's not going to happen because no one wants to live in Mississippi other than Brett Farve.
     
  12. hulugu, May 22, 2018
    Last edited: May 22, 2018

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #12
    Again, feel "rich" is entirely subjective and as much based on the relative wealth of colleagues and neighbors as anything else.

    It reminds me of high school. I'd spent the summer washing dishes and doing demo for my uncle so I could buy my own car. I bought a janky CJ-7 as a project and spent months fixing it, so that by the time senior year rolled around, I had my own shiny Jeep with a new soft-top and cash in my pocket. I felt rich, and I had far more than my friends.

    But, on the return to high school the "rich" kids had shiny new BMWs and SUVs with power-windows and A/C. (My A/C was 360-40 system, take off the top and drive 40 mph until you felt cooler.)

    Was I rich that summer? Not really, but as a 16-year-old kid whose money was mostly spent on crap from AC/Delco and Smitty-Bilt, I was wealthy.

    Median income is the only way to understand relative wealth in the U.S.

    And, we know that median income in Wisconsin will now decline thanks to Harley Davidson's decision to cut 800 jobs at the Kansas City plant. Apparently, the company will add 450 "casual and contractor" positions in York, which has a lower median income.

    So, Wisconsin will lose 350 jobs, and the remaining jobs will not include benefits, and meanwhile, the heads of Harley-Davidson will earn millions through the stock buyback program.

    Someone in Wisconsin should thank Paul Ryan.

    And, I'll stand by my earlier critiques that Harleys are crappy overpriced garbage for middle-aged posers with too much money to spend.
     
  13. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #13
    100k is far from rich if you live in California.
     
  14. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #14
    That's great an all but that's not what he said, anyone making over 100K and lets impose some "supertax" of 95%. He made no mention of it depending on where they live. Go look at the **** box someone is living in in NYC who makes 100K. He's talking about massive taxes and where the threshold should be, what someone "feels" is irrelevant. I don't meet with my accountant in March and discuss how I felt the past year.
     
  15. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #15
    At this point if you work for a publicly traded company you should request you get paid 100% in stock. Then you’ll actually matter to the company and might make more money.

    And we really won't start seeing the real bad consequences of these tax cuts for another decade or so. But we'll blame whoever is in office at the time because we are idiots.
     
  16. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #16
    That's absurd. $100k is a colossal amount of money.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #17
    We're talking past each other a bit. I really wasn't going to comment on a "supertax" because that's a non-starter, and obviously too much tax for too low a bracket. Frankly, I thought he was just being hyperbolic.

    Rather than argue that $100,000 is rich or not, instead, we should think about tax brackets when compared to median and average incomes.

    BTW, I've lived in the NYC shitbox. That's why I don't live in NYC despite it being the mothership for most media outlets.
     
  18. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #18
    See the post above this one. ;)

    Setting tax brackets based on median and average incomes and cost of living factors would be next to impossible.
     
  19. hulugu, May 22, 2018
    Last edited: May 22, 2018

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #19
    Well, no. In San-Francisco, it's just above the median income. In Washington D.C.-Arlington, the median income is around $96,000.

    But, in Phoenix, it's nearly double the median income. In part, we see a few cities were $100,000 isn't enough to live well, largely because rents and housing is nuts—see N.Y., S.F., Seattle.

    In Washington, the median income is buoyed by lobbyists, defense executives, and high-level government wanks.

    In Arizona, the median income is bad because wages are low throughout most of the state, and there's endemic poverty on the reservations and in the farming and ranching communities. So, if you live in Elfrida, Arizona $100,000 is milk and honey wages. But, for someone in downtown Phoenix, $100,000 is good. In midtown S.F., you're probably getting roommates.
     
  20. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #20
    You're getting confused between income and outgoings. Nobody cares where you live as the only relevant thing is that you earn 100k$. How you spend it doesn't enter the equation for evaluating if 100k$ is an obscene amount of money. It is an obscene amount to earn so should be taxed like so.
    --- Post Merged, May 22, 2018 ---
    No we shouldn't. Where you live is your choice, not uncle Sam's. What makes you think you should get a better tax rate on your earnings compared to where I live? Your dollar and my dollar are still the same paper currency and should be taxed equally.

    To those who get confused about high outgoings needing tax breaks, I laugh out loud and say "Pay your share and stop robbing the working class."
     
  21. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #21
    Every blue moon, I read a post that actually makes me thankful that Republicans are in office.

    This is one of those posts.
     
  22. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #22
    Yes, Trump is the poster boy for how life should be lived.
     
  23. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #23
    Trump is an absolute tool bag, but I’d much rather live in his America than the one you’re describing. Lots of people share this sentiment.

    Just something to keep in mind the next time a socialist gains a large chunk of support on the democratic ticket.
     
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #24
    I don't see how an amount within a few thousand of the median income in some cities is a moral issue.

    Undoubtedly, compared to wages in 1950, $100,000 was a huge amount of money, which is why at the time, households with that income faced a tax rate of 89 percent, while those with incomes over $200,000 were hit with a 91 percent tax bracket. But, that last group was only a small number of households, numbering about 10,000.

    Even in 1980, the tax bracket for people making over $109,400 was 64 percent.

    The real issue is that people making $225,000 and above have a tax rate of 39.6 percent. We need to bring back the tax rates so that people above $225,00 get hit with 39.6 (or more) and there's a sliding scale from that point on.
    --- Post Merged, May 22, 2018 ---
    Meh. If given a choice between the socialists and the corporatist fleebags currently in the GOP, I'll polish my hammer and sickle, comrade.

    But, that's not what we've gotten. Even Democrats in full-Bernie Sanders mode are basically soft capitalists who just want some elements of social democracies. Meanwhile, the GOP would steal your children and sell them back to you for a buck to fund profit-making schools.
     
  25. Mac'nCheese thread starter Suspended

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #25
    Not if you tax it at 95%.
     

Share This Page

105 May 22, 2018