Not really, if one understands business and finance. Most capital-L Libertarians and Objectivists and the GOP base don’t, so I’ll explain further.
Banks give out bonuses after* profitable years no matter what. I doubt that the new tax law (which the CEO in the original was discussing and which hasn’t taken effect) has anything substantive to do with this particular bonus.
Companies are indeed rushing to claim that they’re giving out bonuses against next year’s unknown results not because it’s sound finance but because it’s good PR in support of a tax break they really want to see passed. The press releases are basically aimed at the naive boobs who still believe that trickle-down works after 30 years of failure to deliver.
Those same suckers like to believe that capital spending and R&D and largesse to employees and philanthropic giving are the primary concerns of the corporations they worship, when in fact anyone with real-world experience understands that the first priority is increasing shareholder value each quarter, followed closely by increasing executive compensation and on tax avoidance.
Corporations are constantly trying to keep labour costs down because it’s usually the biggest line item under the expenditures column. Capital investments are rarely made, and when they are they’re amortised over years if not decades. Large incumbent corporations in the U.S. spend money on in-house R&D very grudgingly, especially if they can spend less by lobbying the government for sweetheart deals that cement their semi-monopoly position in the market (see the recent FCC decision). A lot of what they characterise as R&D is in reality acquisitions of smaller and more nimble potential competitors, and when they do it they’re using money that’s been hoarded in treasury (sometimes in overseas tax shelters) for years.
[* emphasis because giving out bonuses for future performance would be insanity unless the company’s executives have a time machine]
Independent and government auditing and analyst bodies have reviewed the tax bill and the reputable ones have all come to the same conclusion: it benefits large incumbent corporation, UHNWIs, and specific sectors (including, surprise, real estate developers) but basically shafts everyone else (including the bulk of the conservative sucker base). To demand that someone who understands this should also decide to pay more than his fair share of taxes to remedy the situation makes no financial or political sense.
