"Akhirnya semua orang tahu bahwa di Indonesia lebih ramai berita percekcokan, mengenai rebutan kedudukan, dan rebutan hanya ingin menjadi orang penting saja, dengan alibi akan memperjuangkan kepentingan rakyat, terbukti mereka melihat banyak orang miskin yang menjerit, beras mahal, rupiah melemah di bawah dolar AS, dan disana sisni pengusaha kecil banyak yang menjerit,oleh sebab lemanhya perekonomian saat ini.Tapi justru mereka-mereka yang katanya ketika mendirikan partai akan membela rakyat justru bertikai hanya rebutan kursi buat saling menjadi ketua." Inilah yang terjadi dari sebagaian partai." Lantas mana mereka punya janji akan membantu rakyat. jika setiap hari kerja mereka hanya cecok, dan sepertinya mereka punya niat hanya sebatas merayu rakyat belaka, okey sekarang semua tahau bahwa partai oleh mereka dibuat mencari kehidupan dan jabatan buat mereka untuk bisa menjadi DPR RI, atau menjadi Bupati, atau menjadi calo jabatan dan kesananya mereka mencari proyek buat menyambung hidup atau mempertahankan usaha mereka agar tidak terusik,"mungkin seperti itu adanya.?". Cetus Andri luntungan pengamat International saat dimintai tanggapannya mengenai Indonesia selalu banyak percekcokan didalam partai.Siang ini, andri juga mendengar para pakar lokal Indonesia, berbicara seperti tidak memiliki jiwa yang netral dan mereka seperti setengah mering berpihak pada salah satu kelompok,artinya para pengamat bagaikan mendapat sebuah pesan seponsor.maaf buat para pengamat lokal Indonesia, terpaksa hal ini saya katakan oleh sebab cara mereka menyampaikan tidak netral. Okey, kembali kepada persolan mengenai terjadinya melemah rupiah dan kurangnya mereka yang katanya sebagai orang partai akan membela masyarakat mengapa melihat keberadaan pondasi ekonomi masyarakat mulai tergoyahkan mereka seperti diam saja.Padahal jika mereka sebagai orang partai yang katanya berniat akan membela masyarakat,ketika melihat keberadaan Negaranya tergoyahkan ekonominya mereka membantu,oleh sebab mereka membuat partai setidaknya bertujuan buat membantu negara dan masyarakat,seandainya mereka hadir sebagai partai dan berkerumun tetapi tidak pernah perduli terhadap keadaan didalam negaranya, apa layak ada partai seperti itu berada didalam negara ini?. bahkan justru mereka seperti membuat gaduh didalam negara, bayangkan jika benar partai didalam negara berbuat seperti itu terus dibiarkan kedepannya kira-kira bagaimana.?. Okey demokrasi didalam negara ini sangant baik tetapi bukan berarti, segala paratai yang dapat berdiri didalam negara ini bisa berbuat seenaknya.aturan AD ART partai,biasanya dibuat atas kesepakatan mereka, dan bukan atas kesepakat negara, seandainya mereka bertikai seharusnya tidak perlu mereka harus minta bantuan negara selam didalam berpartai tidak berbuat kriminal. Seandainya sebuah partai yang berdiri akhirnya membuat resah masyarakat dan negara apa tidak sepantasnya jika pendirian partai itu perlu di tinjau ulang atau keberadaan partai selama tidak bisa rujuk alangkah baiknya negara tidak perlu mengakui partai itu.Cetusnya, terlepas semua itu mungkin saya tidak perlu mengamati masalah itu yang perlu saya sampaiakan disini adalah sudah sejauh apa keberadaan mereka telah berbuat yang terbaik bagi warga pendukung mereka, dan sudah sejauh apa mereka buat mengapdi terhadap negara.?.Cutus andri. Dia juga menilai, selama semua yang berada di Indonesia kurang mengerti apa artinya membela negara jangan harap mereka akan mau mengabdi dengan keaslian mereka.Justru yang ada kehidupan mereka hanya mementingkan kelompok, perorangan dan golongan kampung atau daerah."Bayangkan seandainya hal itu terjadi dan ada, semenatara Indonesia yang berdiri dengan berbagai daerah dari sabang sampai morauke,jika mereka semua tidak segera diakomodir seperti apa keberadaan Indonesia.?" Mungkin saya sampai saat belum tahu persis, seperti apa keberadaan para yang so belaga jadi tokoh politik,dan saya juga tidak tahu makna keberadaan para tokoh politik arahnya sedang berpikir kemana, namun demikian saya melhat dalamjangka pendek sepertinya saat sekarang mereka lagi sibuk mementingkan perorangan atau kelompok, sementara buat berpikir lebih global hampir tidak terlihat bahkan yang terlihat sepintas mereka lemah buat memperjuangkan negaranya, terbukti mereka melihat keberadaan Indonesia sedang terjadi gejolak eknominya, mereka tidak ada buat memperjuangkan buat negaranya bisa unggul ekonominya, seandainya mereka benar-benar akan memperjuangkan rakyat dia harus peka bagaiman melihat keadaan.Artinya jika mereka pintar buktikan kepintaran mereka buat bisa memberikan aspirasinya menolong membangkitkan Indonesia. Okey tinggalkan dulu mereka sekarang kembali kepada pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia yang seperti mulai tergoyahkan dan fudamentalnya perlahan mulai terkikis dan disana sisni harga-harga mulai meliejit, apa dia beras, gas, dan minyak goreng dan suku cadang, ditambah lagi perlahan warga di Indonesia terlihat mulai gusar dengan masa depan mereka, artinya jika nantinya barang -barang terus melejit naik, dan mereka tidak lagi mampuh membeli, setidaknya tidak sedikit bagi anak-anak mereka akan terhenti buat mengejar cita cita masa depannya. Sementara para kapitalisasi, di Indonesia belum pernah bisa dicegah, terbukti, cakar kapitalisasi mampuh mencengkram, Indonesia, dan bagi mereka yang menjadi pengusaha kecil hanya bisa menunggu tetesan dari mereka, dan iranosnya kapitalisasi telah mampuh meraja di Indonesia.Sejauh ini prokonomian yang terihat sepintas saya tahu belum mampuh menghancurkan kapitalis, justru kapitalis yang mengatur Indonesia. "selama kapitalis terus dianggap sebagai yang berkuasa dan semua tunduk terhadap mereka tunggu kehancuran Indonesia.
The latest Employment Situation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows weekly employee earnings have grown $75 since tax reform passed, well short of the $4,000 to $9,000 annual increases projected by President Trump
Donald John TrumpRobert De Niro, Ben Stiller play Mueller and Cohen in 'SNL' parody of 'Meet the Parents' Trump order targets wide swath of public assistance programs Comey says Trump reacted to news of Russian meddling by asking if it changed election results MORE and House Speaker Paul Ryan
Paul Davis RyanTrump order targets wide swath of public assistance programs Sunday shows preview: White House officials talk Syria strike Wage growth well short of what was promised from tax reform MORE (R-Wis.).
During the three months following passage of the tax bill, the average American saw a $6.21 increase in average weekly earnings. Assuming 12 weeks of work during the three months following passage of the corporate tax cuts, this equates to a $75 increase.
Assuming a full 52 weeks of work, the $6.21 increase in weekly earnings would result in a $323 annual increase, nowhere near the minimum $4,000 promised and $9,000 potential annual increases projected by President Trump and Speaker Ryan if significant cuts were made to corporate tax rates.
Unless something drastically changes, it seems that Americans are going to have to settle for much less than the $4,000 to $9,000 projected wage increases. An extra $322 a year isn’t going to do much to pay down the $1 trillion in additional debt they are projected to take on as a result of the tax cuts.
Yet, a key part of the argument for the recently passed corporate tax cuts and more than a trillion dollars in debt was the substantial wage hike promised by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA).
From a document titled, “Corporate Tax Reform and Wages: Theory and Evidence,” on the White House’s website:
“Reducing the statutory federal corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent would, the analysis below suggests, increase average household income in the United States by, very conservatively, $4,000 annually.”
The document goes on to say:
“When we use the more optimistic estimates from the literature, wage boosts are over $9,000 for the average U.S. household.”
No less than Speaker Ryan’s website trumpeted the Council of Economic Advisers report claiming that on average, the proposed corporate tax cuts would result in at least a $4,000 annual increase in wages.
Now, some supporters of the tax bill may say this analysis is unfair because it is too early for the effects of the tax bill to show up in wages. By that logic, they also shouldn’t take credit for reported employment growth increases.
Still others may point to the $1,000 bonuses announced by some companies shortly after passage of the tax bill. First, that is significantly less than the promised $4,000 to $9,000. Second, these are not wage increases; these are one-time bonuses.
Will companies pay them again, and if so when? Third, the $1,000 represents a fraction of the estimated potential company tax savings.
Using 2016 net income, 2016 effective tax rates, the new 21-percent corporate tax rate and company bonuses, we estimated company bonuses as a percentage of a number of company’s potential tax savings. The results: In many cases, the bonuses represent a mere pittance of the possible tax savings.
Navient announced that it would be giving $1,000 bonuses to 98 percent of its 6,7000 employees, paying out nearly $7 million in bonuses. While that may seem generous, it pales in comparison to Navient’s potential tax savings.
Using Navient’s 2016 net income, its 2016 effective tax rate, estimated annual tax savings of nearly $200 million and its announced bonuses, we calculated that the announced bonuses represent less than 4 percent of Navient’s potential tax savings.
Turning to the airline industry, JetBlue’s employees might be feeling blue if they realized that their $1,000 bonuses are estimated to be less than 10 percent of JetBlue’s potential tax savings, while American Airlines’ bonuses are estimated to represent less than 15 percent of its estimated potential annual tax savings
Not to be outdone, Comcast’s bonuses represent less than 8 percent of its estimated potential annual tax savings, while Walmart appears downright generous, giving an estimated $0.16 of every dollar of its estimated potential annual tax savings to employees in the form of bonuses.
Source: Solutionomics
What happened to the minimum $4,000 promised? I guess like many promises by politicians, they were empty. Instead, they seem to have gone to share buybacks. For the period December 2017 through February 2018, share buybacks more than doubled to $200 million.
Is a $323 wage increase and a one-time bonus of $1,000 that represents a fraction of estimated potential company tax savings worth the more than $1 trillion in additional debt placed on Americans? Is this the best Congress could do? No.
Instead, Congress could have simply made each company’s tax cut contingent on each company increasing wages. The problem is that some companies receiving tax cuts didn’t raise wages.
If Congress had made each company’s tax cut contingent on each company’s wage increases, the American people would have gotten more bang for their tax cut bucks. Additionally, this would have created a real incentive for companies to raise wages: Increase wages, get a tax cut; don’t and you won’t.
If the justification for saddling the American people with at least $1 trillion in additional debt was greater wage growth, tax cuts should have been tied to each company’s wage growth; that’s just logical. That’s getting a better deal for the American people, and that’s getting a better return on investment.
Chris Macke is the founder of Solutionomics, a think tank focused on developing solutions for a more efficient, merit-based corporate tax code. He has advised the U.S. Federal Reserve by providing market updates and implications of monetary policy changes on asset valuations and market distortions, and he's a contributor to the Fed Beige Book. Find him on Twitter: @solutionomics.





































Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar