
AT&T lied about everything it promised to do if it got a tax cut - apeace
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qjdvex/atandt-lied-about-everything-it-promised-to-do-if-it-got-a-tax-cut
======
irjustin
To me, this whole thing was a sham anyway. Promising the working class some
tax breaks but large corps get significantly outsized breaks which will turn
into jobs if you just vote this thing through!

Oh and the deficit will add $1T but no one's worried about that.

This is all fixable, but we cannot expect the current administration nor party
to do it. Honestly, I wish I knew what was going on in the party such that
they perform these long term losses for these extremely questionable short
term gains.

~~~
shadow-banned
I do believe that we're living in two political dimensions - dimension A, and
dimension B. (This is purely academic distinction - just for illustrative
purposes.)

I was just in Kansas, and all I saw were people that would benefit massively
from Liberal/Democratic policies, and yet vote against their best interest
Every. Single. Time.

Wrapping blue collar and middle class voters in a blanket of patriotism, near-
worship of the military class and first responders, and positioning anything
else as anti-American is very powerful.

~~~
salawat
>I was just in Kansas, and all I saw were people that would benefit massively
from Liberal/Democratic policies, and yet vote against their best interest
Every. Single. Time.

It's easy to feel that way if you don't understand what is really important to
that particular vein of person.

Adversity can be lived and reckoned with as long as there is safety, and
overarching stability. People want to be part of something they can be proud
of, and that they overcome difficult circumstances makes it all the sweeter.
Most importantly though, people just want to be not-interfered with.

When your ostensibly Liberal party has some fiscally attractive ideas, but
undermines the very traditional "heart and soul" of the overarching culture,
you're going to have a very hard sell. Especially when the other party can sit
back and say, "If not for us, they'd have destroyed the American dream, and
turned it into a government operated nightmare." Which despite many admirable
liberal causes, from the behavior of the political machine elsewhere finds a
sizable portion of the populations agreeing with the other side.

Give up on the moral crusade on firearms, get off the Wall Street teat,
refocus efforts on organizing and reempowering labor, actually focus on fiscal
stability by putting entitlements on a back burner and revamp some of the more
fundamental ways our economy is malfunctioning. Use the anti-trust hammer,
hold large regional monopolies accountable and make it hurt when they don't
deliver. Do something to thwart the problematic forms of financial engineering
(private equity abuses, short-term gains over long-term stability, predatory
financial products), and for the love of God, get healthcare sorted, and
simplify/deantagonize the mechanics of taxation. Shift funding to Research and
Education, simplify and raise awareness of ways of civic participation, and
maybe consider whether or not some environmental issues can be tackled by the
of establishment of Public Works programs.

If anything has stood out to me about the difference between my current
generation, and my grandparent's it is that nowadays a civicly minded
individual would be hard pressed to be able to actually make a living
improving their community.

Funding is trapped in a Market driven by chasing the latest international
money making hype scheme rather than actually getting physical labor/goods
production done. The service/rent seeking/consumerist paradigm is death and
stagnation incarnate. No one is enabled by forced dependence on someone else.

At least, that seems to be the vibe I've picked up on from the Midwest states
I've frequented... Which I'll be the first to admit isn't that extensive.

~~~
freeone3000
It seems as if you favor Republican policies strongly, as those are the
tenants that Republicans should stand for. Entitlements, gun control, and
cognizance of the interdependence of man are central to the Democratic party -
just as stubborn independence, small government, and free market solutions are
to the Republican party. The changes you suggest that Democrats make would
make them entirely indistinguishable from Republicans.

~~~
salawat
Well, don't shoot the messenger. I just talk to people. That's what I've
consistently heard.

I don't label people, or toss am in buckets. I just ask em what they want. The
general streak is leave me alone, I don't like the game being stacked against
me, keep me safe, free, and capable of making an honest living, and most
importantly don't rook me.

Also if you think Republicans have ever been pro-labor, you are sadly mistaken
in that regard. Public Works are also generally non-starters except for those
who were around in the early 1900's in my experience, and are the
quintessential of fundamental interdependence, but also have a tendency to be
small localized efforts;something appealing to conservatives more so than not.
Enforcing responsibility for corporate actions has always been lackluster on
the Republican side as well; Democrats haven't done great on that either.
Anti-trust is starting to boot back up again bipartisanly, but it has taken
some serious levels of gilded age to even rustletbings enough for that.

Did you even read half the things I mentioned? I'll give you there are quote
"Republican overtones" there; but I don't ask people to talk to me about their
political party, I ask them what they're concerned about. Think people's
political label matters a whole lot less in the long run than their input in
what represents the biggest problem to deal with. The "Party Branding" as I
call it is just mud in the process of trying to chase down what needs to be
prioritized and handled. Both sides are spending more time trying to look like
they're the best side of humanity that it seems like actually _being_ that
seems to fall by the wayside.

The two States I frequent are Texas and Minnesota. If that helps any.

Frankly, I'd probably get thrown out of any modern political rally, because I
think they're all doing a terrible job of running an effective government at
this point. There are so many systematic warts that have taken root it'll
likely be decades til we get to weeding them out, but hey, that's politics.

Just wanted to share my observation, and point out that to the Voters, they
_aren 't_ voting against their best interest. They just have precious little
to go from that the "other guy" will generate better results.

------
smsm42
I'm not sure what the author's complaint is. The quote they provide is:

“By immediately lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, this bill will
stimulate investment, job creation and economic growth in the United States,”
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said at the time. “Research tells us that every $1
billion in capital invested in telecom creates about 7,000 good jobs for the
middle class,” the CEO proclaimed.

Nowhere in this quote it says AT&T specifically promises anything if they get
a tax cut, or that they perform any actions at all. It's a generic opinion
about a nationwide economic policy, not a specific promise of an action of
specific company. To call this "lied" is insane, it's like I'd say "lowering
taxes is good for middle class" and the tax cut happens but then I get in
financial trouble and some journalist writes an article claiming I am a liar
because I am middle class, and taxes were cut but I am actually doing worse
off! It should be crystal clear that no nationwide economic policy can
guarantee every single company would post profits every single year and would
never have workforce cuts.

If somebody is lying here, it is the author of the article. He obviously have
read AT&T statements, as he is quoting them, he should be smart enough to
understand what is being said in them, and still he claims AT&T promised what
it clearly never did. This is textbook definition of lying.

Now, its legitimate to argue that maybe tax cuts were not as good as their
proponents promised, and maybe their real effects were different. But one can
not do it on the example of one single company! AT&T is indeed in big trouble,
as somebody who recently cut off all ties with the company after being a
client for more than a decade, I can confirm their service have gone way
downhill, while their prices continue the steady march upwards. This company
is in trouble, no question about that. But making from that the conclusion
that it somehow is related to the tax policy and constitutes a "lie" is plain
idiotic and insulting to the reader's intelligence.

------
logfromblammo
Lies are only punished if you tell them to rich people.

Further down the article, you can see that investors are mad only because
AT&T's mergers and acquisitions don't seem to be paying off fast enough.

------
altacc
Almost all companies' overwhelming priority is to increase the wealth of their
owners and shareholders. That is often diametrically opposed to benefiting
customers. Unfortunately too many people have only attended Economics 101,
which insists that the way for a company to be successful is to be the best
for the market. Economics 101 fails to be evidence based, or realise that the
dominant market is not a company's customers, it's the company ownership.

~~~
smsm42
> Economics 101, which insists that the way for a company to be successful is
> to be the best for the market

No it doesn't. I don't know which Economic 101 you had, but you may want to
ask for a refund on the money you paid for it. Economics says nothing of the
sort. For a company to be successful, its services should find willing
consumers.

> the dominant market is not a company's customers, it's the company
> ownership.

Can somebody translate this to English for me? I recognize all the words, but
I can't make any sense of them being arranged this way. What does it mean
"dominant market is the company ownership"? It just doesn't compute.

~~~
lxmorj
I believe he means: they aren’t in competition for customers. They are in
competition for stockholders. Stockholders exist in a true competitive
marketplace where AT&T must provide value to get their business. This is
strictly not the case for most of AT&Ts customer-facing business. That exists
in an oligopoly that appears to collude on pricing and (lack of) service.

~~~
smsm42
As an ex-client of AT&T and now client of a set of different providers, that
has not been my experience - both prices and service levels vary quite
significantly.

------
jimbob45
This is the kind of thing that makes me feel like neither party really knows
what it's doing. If you're going to create some big tax bill, passing it early
on in your presidency is the worst possible choice you can make. Now, the
American people can judge the outcome of that bill and will vote accordingly
in 2020. If they'd simply waited to pass that bill until just before the
midterms in 2018 and had it take effect in 2020, then no one would truthfully
be able to say that the bill had failed. This isn't even some deep insight I'm
making here - it should have been brought up within the first five minutes of
the first meeting of creating the bill.

You could argue that the strategy may have been to stanch their losses in the
2018 election....but that election went almost as badly as it could possibly
have gone for the right anyway (depending on who you ask).

~~~
Clent
Genuinely curious as to how this is an example of the neither partying knowing
what's its doing since this was Republican legislation which negatively
effected that party's reelection campaigns.

------
tanaros
I don't really understand corporate taxation, but maybe someone here can
educate me.

Why do we expect cutting corporate taxes to increase investment? Aren't costs
associated with infrastructure, hiring, wages, etc. considered deductible
business expenses? I suppose there are some edge cases there like payroll
taxes, but it seems like most of what a corporation spends money on is
effectively coming from pre-tax dollars.

------
ggggtez
Huh, it's almost as if Ajit Pai is corrupt. Whadya know.

------
B4CKlash
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as
an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

― Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

A tax break is never a long term incentive for an organization. Each year the
financial plan is re-base against last years performance. The expectations is
always set at continual growth and improvement. A tax break is only seen as a
tax break for a single year... especially when you consider a different
political establishment could drastically swing the country in the opposite
direction.

~~~
luxuryballs
That quote is actually right though, just like Dave Chapelle said his Dad told
him, “poor is a mentality, we’re not poor son, we’re broke!” (implying it was
temporary rather than a lifestyle choice)

~~~
washadjeffmad
Well, there's only one Dave Chapelle, but millions of "Dave Chapelle"s that
are still "broke".

So while you're not strictly wrong, I wouldn't consider it particularly
positive distinction.

------
yyy888sss
Set the corporate tax rate to 0. US companies hold trillions in profit
overseas which could be used to invest or be taxed when it's distributed to
shareholders.

Edit: If the rich shareholders disproportionately benefit from this then raise
capital gains. I'd wonder though what proportion of shares are actually held
by the 1% though, I'd think a large amount of shares are held in people's
pensions/ETFS/401k etc. Theres always calls for taxing the evil corporations
more but in the end all taxes are paid by people - either shareholders or
employees.

~~~
mdorazio
Did you seriously just read the article and conclude that the problem is we
didn't push hard enough for trickle-down economics?

~~~
jlmorton
Cutting corporate taxes to zero does not necessarily mean trickle-down
economics.

We could cut the corporate tax rate to zero, tax capital at a rate slightly
higher than labor (in exchange for using a corporation as a tax-free
investment vehicle). We could have a carbon tax and a VAT, with all the
proceeds refunded equally to households, which would serve as a UBI.

Eliminating the corporate tax would remove all manner of distortions from our
economy, and would free-up huge amounts of resources currently allocated
towards avoiding taxation.

Instead of offering insidious tax credits/expenditures to support industries
we want, we could offer an equivalent amount of subsidies, which would be on
balance sheet, and much easier to judge their effectiveness.

There's no particular reason we must tax corporations, and there are a lot of
reasons why it makes sense not to. But certainly we should not cut corporate
taxes without capturing that revenue elsewhere in a progressive way.

~~~
mdorazio
Or we could fix the tax code so that avoiding taxation is simply not possible
instead of hoping that altruistic policies will be enacted to help the working
class. I'd love for it to be otherwise, but judging by the last several
decades of policy and trends, the most likely outcome of cutting corporate
taxes is more inequality and very little meaningful help to most Americans.

~~~
luxuryballs
What I am curious about is why corporations need to pay “bonus” tax at all
(other than on imports/exports or purchases of commodities/equipment), the
employees and the stakeholders of the corporations (the actual people) already
pay income tax, why isn’t that fair enough?

~~~
didibus
Lots of companies have employees and stakeholders in diferent countries that
do not pay any taxes, yet profit from operating here. That's one reason.

Another reason is distribution. You might want employees to pay no taxes at
all on their salaries. And you might want shareholders to pay no money at all
on their capital gains or dividends, and yet you'd want company revenue to be
taxed. The big difference is in theory, a company can just rotate money within
itself forever, take revenue and use it for expansion, or investment, or
whatever. So all that money only gets taxed once a shareholder sells, or an
employee gets paid, but a large portion gets re-invested in the company
itself, which you'd want taxed as well, in order to get a steady flow of cash
and also capture its real value.

