Kimberly Clark says the Trump tax-cuts let it fire 5,500 US workers and pay out dividends to its shareholders


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/01/27/huggies-kleenex.html


#2


#3

You get what you vote for.

Donald Trump won Wisconsin by a narrow margin of 47.2% to 46.5% for Hillary Clinton, thanks to overwhelming and underestimated support from working class voters which the Democrats had previously had an advantage with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin,_2016


#4

I’m surprised that they admit it. Everyone seems to eager to curry favor with the administration that they’re attributing all their relatively small (1-2% of their tax windfalls), one-time bonuses to the tax cut and hiding the fact that they’re usually being paid for with layoffs and price hikes. So now there are more layoffs associated with the tax plan then there are new hirings. Maybe Paul Ryan can brag about that on Twitter.


#5

Yeah, their claiming this really seems like Trumptrolling to me, and in the same week as the the gold toilet offer and passage of the NASTY women act.


#6

I suspect that they worked really hard to frame the whole thing as the tax windfall allowing them to do “money saving restructuring” or somesuch. The layoffs and plant closures were no doubt downplayed, and it’s only press reports that untangle what they’re actually doing to save money.


#7

Once again, many of those evil liberal “Coastal Elites” are given reason to give the right-wing populist Real Americans™ in the Heartland a big “Thanks again, suckahs!”

With an accomplished grifter in the Oval Office lying on a daily basis with no real consequences, they and other corporate execs have been emboldened not to pretend anymore.


#8

To those surprised by this move, please familiarize yourself with the concept of Shareholder Primacy, which is the de facto norm in US publicly held companies.


#9

It’s the prime directive of our current “slow AIs.” The only people surprised by this are the rubes who voted for Il Douche.


#10

tumblr_p35j97tkzz1vfmb0jo1_400


#11

You’re doing a heckuva job, Trumpie.


#12

Simply boycott Kimberly Clark products. They have just-as-good competitors in all of their product groups. Do not by any Kimberly Clark products. At all. Nationwide. Go further. Do not patronize stores that carry Kimberly Clark products. Union pension funds - sell your Kimberly Clark stock. Loudly and publicly. Try to make sure that the company’s name is in the news every night; and not in a good way. Do everything possible to drive down the stock price. That’s the only way to get their attention.


#13

So, lets cut to the chase.

Clearly stated: Tax cuts to the rich “Job Creators” causes them to reduce jobs.

Better be all over this, because the Repubs will just keep saying whatever the fuck they want to screw you.


#14

I honestly have very little faith in the impact of boycotts. The only time they really seem to kick in is when there’s a seeerious breach of faith by a company. A breach that is perceived by greater society as of great concern.


#15

Ok, something still confuses me about this whole “corporate tax cuts to boost the economy” concept.

I’m well aware that in practice, tax rates are not a real factor in corporate decision making regarding investment (so that the net effect of the cuts on wages or economic growth is essentially nothing), and that the actual purpose of these cuts is upward wealth redistribution and making it cheaper to repatriate foreign profits from tax havens.

But in the hypothetical world where the stated goals were the real goals… and please correct me where I’m wrong about this… companies invest in capital goods and plants, and pay salaries, with pre-tax dollars, but pay shareholders dividends with after-tax dollars. So to me it looks like corporate or capital gains tax cuts make investing profits in facilities or people relatively more expensive, compared to hoarding cash or paying dividends, respectively (for example, if the tax rate fell from 50% to 0%, then spending $1 to buy equipment now costs $1 in dividends instead of $0.50 in dividends). Wouldn’t that be a disincentive for investment and hiring?

What am I missing? Because I didn’t see that argument made in any articles I read during the tax bill debate, so I’m assuming it doesn’t work that way. Is it because of share buybacks and other ways of returning profits to investors besides dividends?


#16

Still waiting for that wealth to trickle down, you guys…


#17

maybe you should.move downstairs from someone with a skyscraper hot tub…


#18

All in accordance with Rule of Acquisition 211:

Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don’t hesitate to step on them.


#19

https://twitter.com/theleftfarmer/status/957456138911539200


#20

The best worst thing about this? Kimberly Clark stock price has gone up. :3 Man, trump is really good at boosting the economy~!