AT&T Plans To Fire 7000 People Despite Tax Breaks, Net Neutrality Repeal

[Dragonlady]

So according to the crazy quasi socialist left's skewed logic the government should burden corporations with confiscatory taxes so they don't fire people?

I have issues with your characterization of taxes as "confiscatory". Who paid to educate the company employees? Who keeps your company safe from theft? Who protects your intellectual property? Who ensures you have roads for transportation, access to ports for shipping your goods, railways, waterways, and other means of getting your goods to markets. Who built the infrastructure that supplies heat, power, clean water, and resources to your company? When someone owes your company money and refuses to pay, who pays for the contract enforcement system that is the civil courts?

Did you think those things are all free or that companies shouldn't have to pay their fair share of the costs to provide these things? That's what taxes are - Your share of the costs of running a first world country. You don't want to pay taxes? Move your company to Myanmar where there are no taxes. See how well you do there.

 

[Leo123]

Just speaks volumes....American corporations don't care about their employees .

Stupid comment. All corporations are not the same. Those with leftist CEO's care least about their employees.

Yours is an incredibly dumb comment. How do you know which CEO's are "leftist". Do you have a list?

On the issue that all corporations are not the same, we can agree. But the bald fact is that AMERICAN CEO's are the highest paid in the world relative to the base of the frontline workers. American CEO's, on average, make 312's times that of the front line worker. Their wages went up 17.8% in 2018, while their workers wages went up just

US bosses now earn 312 times the average worker's wage, figures show

Last year, McDonald’s boss Steve Easterbrook earned $21.7m while the McDonald’s workers earned a median wage of just $7,017 – a CEO to worker pay ratio of 3,101 to one. The average Walmart worker earned $19,177 in 2017 while CEO Doug McMillon took home $22.8m – a ratio of 1,188 to one.

That's the reality. CEO's in other parts of the world, earn much, much less - in the range of 120 times their average worker. While that may be high, workers in other parts of the world, where the union movement hasn't been rendered useless, and where government legislation provides for a minimum wage that will cover a basic living wage to those receiving it, as well as universal health care, are generally receiving higher wages than low end American workers whose wages are supplemented by a byzantine network of income supports, with high administration costs, which are also borne by the American taxpayers.

An increased minimum wage, one that wipes out the necessity of earned income credits, food stamps, section 8 housing supports, and other income supplements to low worker wages, would reduce the tax burder on the middle class, and reduce the number of government employees required to administer these programs.

Yes, prices on fast food and discount retail stores would rise, but not by as much as you would think. Every $1 increase in the minimum wage, adds 10 cents to the price of a hamburger at McDonalds. The last figures I saw was that Walmart employees received $2500 in income supports from every taxpayer in America, even if you don\t ever set foot in their store. Imagine if that money was in your pocket instead of the Waltons Family coffers.

Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook.......What more proof do you need? I don't give a shit about the 'rest of the world' I am not a globalist like you. Other parts of the world have much higher tax rates which doesn't help anyone but the bureaucracy. Sorry but, I'm not interested in a 'basic living' and I don't want my wealth taken away to support that lifestyle. The problem with such proclamations is multi-fold. Fist of all, please define 'basic living' or 'basic wage.' Please provide a link for your claim that "Walmart employees received $2500 in income supports from every taxpayer in America" and please explain how $2,500 in 'income supports' for Walmart employees ends up in the Walton Family coffers.

 

[Leo123]

So according to the crazy quasi socialist left's skewed logic the government should burden corporations with confiscatory taxes so they don't fire people?

I have issues with your characterization of taxes as "confiscatory". Who paid to educate the company employees? Who keeps your company safe from theft? Who protects your intellectual property? Who ensures you have roads for transportation, access to ports for shipping your goods, railways, waterways, and other means of getting your goods to markets. Who built the infrastructure that supplies heat, power, clean water, and resources to your company? When someone owes your company money and refuses to pay, who pays for the contract enforcement system that is the civil courts?

Did you think those things are all free or that companies shouldn't have to pay their fair share of the costs to provide these things? That's what taxes are - Your share of the costs of running a first world country. You don't want to pay taxes? Move your company to Myanmar where there are no taxes. See how well you do there.

The point was made that corporations get confiscatory money from We The People not to fire people. You didn't address that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just speaks volumes....American corporations don't care about their employees .

Stupid comment. All corporations are not the same. Those with leftist CEO's care least about their employees.

Yours is an incredibly dumb comment. How do you know which CEO's are "leftist". Do you have a list?

On the issue that all corporations are not the same, we can agree. But the bald fact is that AMERICAN CEO's are the highest paid in the world relative to the base of the frontline workers. American CEO's, on average, make 312's times that of the front line worker. Their wages went up 17.8% in 2018, while their workers wages went up just

US bosses now earn 312 times the average worker's wage, figures show

Last year, McDonald’s boss Steve Easterbrook earned $21.7m while the McDonald’s workers earned a median wage of just $7,017 – a CEO to worker pay ratio of 3,101 to one. The average Walmart worker earned $19,177 in 2017 while CEO Doug McMillon took home $22.8m – a ratio of 1,188 to one.

That's the reality. CEO's in other parts of the world, earn much, much less - in the range of 120 times their average worker. While that may be high, workers in other parts of the world, where the union movement hasn't been rendered useless, and where government legislation provides for a minimum wage that will cover a basic living wage to those receiving it, as well as universal health care, are generally receiving higher wages than low end American workers whose wages are supplemented by a byzantine network of income supports, with high administration costs, which are also borne by the American taxpayers.

An increased minimum wage, one that wipes out the necessity of earned income credits, food stamps, section 8 housing supports, and other income supplements to low worker wages, would reduce the tax burder on the middle class, and reduce the number of government employees required to administer these programs.

Yes, prices on fast food and discount retail stores would rise, but not by as much as you would think. Every $1 increase in the minimum wage, adds 10 cents to the price of a hamburger at McDonalds. The last figures I saw was that Walmart employees received $2500 in income supports from every taxpayer in America, even if you don\t ever set foot in their store. Imagine if that money was in your pocket instead of the Waltons Family coffers.

Every $1 increase in the minimum wage, adds 10 cents to the price of a hamburger at McDonalds.

Link?

 

[OnePercenter]

Thus far, the corporations Ajit Pai and the Republican Party bent over backward to help haven’t exactly been returning the favor. GM plans to close plants and fire 14,000 people. Verizon has no plan to boost 5G investment, despite Pai’s claim that repealing net neutrality would lead to additional corporate network spending. Now AT&T is reportedly preparing to fire 7,000 people, despite having previously promised that tax breaks and freedom from burdensome regulation would actually create jobs.

AT&T Plans to Fire 7,000 People Despite Tax Breaks, Net Neutrality Repeal - ExtremeTech

AT&T has shitty coverage

Depends on your location and your spending amount.

In the western United States especially in mountainous areas AT&T coverage sucks

If you have a commercial or high-priority account, unless there is an outage effecting all carriers, with ATT or Verizon you have service over 99% of the western ten States as they have a roaming agreement. It also depends on your phone. Androids work much better in marginal areas because of their antenna.

 

[OnePercenter]

Thus far, the corporations Ajit Pai and the Republican Party bent over backward to help haven’t exactly been returning the favor. GM plans to close plants and fire 14,000 people. Verizon has no plan to boost 5G investment, despite Pai’s claim that repealing net neutrality would lead to additional corporate network spending. Now AT&T is reportedly preparing to fire 7,000 people, despite having previously promised that tax breaks and freedom from burdensome regulation would actually create jobs.

AT&T Plans to Fire 7,000 People Despite Tax Breaks, Net Neutrality Repeal - ExtremeTech

AT&T has shitty coverage

Depends on your location and your spending amount.

In the western United States especially in mountainous areas AT&T coverage sucks

Agreed. That's one of the ways capitalism creates competition: If you have a crappy product, nobody will buy it.

Why are people buying new cars and iPhones?

 

[Muhammed]

Thus far, the corporations Ajit Pai and the Republican Party bent over backward to help haven’t exactly been returning the favor. GM plans to close plants and fire 14,000 people. Verizon has no plan to boost 5G investment, despite Pai’s claim that repealing net neutrality would lead to additional corporate network spending. Now AT&T is reportedly preparing to fire 7,000 people, despite having previously promised that tax breaks and freedom from burdensome regulation would actually create jobs.

AT&T Plans to Fire 7,000 People Despite Tax Breaks, Net Neutrality Repeal - ExtremeTech

I think that's a typo. It's probably 70,000.

Just a few years ago they were saying 90,000. So that's 20,000 less than they said they had to lay off before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

So what the **** are you whining about?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well AT&T sucks...but at least there are plenty of jobs for the terminated to apply for thanks to the Trump economy......no worries....

Let me get this straight. The Trump policies that allegedly create jobs aren't creating jobs so it's no big deal if people are losing jobs upon implementation of the policies because there are so many jobs available because of the aforementioned job creating policies that aren't actually creating jobs.

Or, to put it another way, shenanigans.

My company cannot find enough people to do the work. We have openings for about 10 new people, but we keep losing them because they don't want to work, or get a better offer.

So a person that doesn't want to work applies and is hired because they don't want to work?

If people leave the company where you work because they get a better offer, isn't that a large tell on your company?

No, because we have had three employees return to us after their better offer turned out to be smoke and mirrors.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So a person that doesn't want to work applies and is hired because they don't want to work?

If people leave the company where you work because they get a better offer, isn't that a large tell on your company?

Well people on unemployment HAVE to apply for work otherwise they get no government cheese. There is no mandate for them to actually TAKE that job.

In my state, if you refuse a job, your unemployment can be terminated.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Sigh. . . . Of all the things I could say in reply, let me just ask a simple question: Are you saying that AT&T would not be laying off 7,000 people if they were paying the old corporate tax rate of 35% instead of 21%? IOW, if AT&T had to pay 40% more in corporate taxes, they would not be laying off 7,000 people?