Electric Utility Wants to Cut Rates - More Tax Overhaul Benefits

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-p...er-customer-bills-following-tax-overhaul-bill

The company is also facing a review of its rate increase prompted by a consumer complaint.


Probably a coincidence, I'm sure.

That happens literally every year.

Oh, you know that is true!

As more and more of these stories come out about organizations doing something noble purportedly because of the tax cuts, the true ulterior motives come to light. What kills me is how easily disproven their purported motives (the tax cut) are.

utilities are publicly regulated. The Public Service Commissioner here basically said they had better pass the savings on to rate-payers. But we hate regulations so...

There is no company that will drop the price of anything unless they are forced to for some reason or other. And when they do, they will always try to spin it as an act of benevolence.

Question: Would this proposed rate decrease be happening if the tax package had not been passed?

If you say yes, what's your rationale for saying so?

If you say no, then who cares what the fundamental motives are for WHY its happening?

Well there is this thing, called long-term thinking where one tries to figure out if the short-term gain is just a precursor of long-term losses...

While this is mostly true, it's not always true. Because as we all know, mostly true means partly false.

Companies drop prices on things to clear out inventories of outdated stock - last year's cell phone drops in price when this year's model comes out, for example. Companies also drop prices sometimes for tax reasons or to create a loss leader. Or (looking at you, Microsoft) to artificially price their product lower than their competition to secure market share. So there are cases.

Not really true, I drop prices all the time because I deal in commodities and I never spin it as an act of benevolence.

You are being "forced" by the fact that you won't sell it otherwise though, aren't you?

Not really - I can find people to sell at a higher price either in my domestic market or somewhere in an export market but I prefer to have the loyalty of customers and making them certain that I'm keeping them competitive. In turn, when a bottom feeder comes knocking at their door to move in on my business they'll let me know instead of switching right over. At least that's the way it works 95% of the time.

Yeah, 'force' was probably the wrong word for @RickDeckard to use, but 'driven by reasons other than benevolence' makes the point just as well.

I am looking all over the place and can't find where anyone argued that anyone was doing this for reasons of "benevolence".

The important thing is that its happening, and it wouldn't have been happening if not for the tax restructuring.

"They're cutting prices because they got a tax cut and they're passing the savings on to consumers instead of pocketing the difference" sure sounds like a "benevolent" spin to me.

If it comes down to "Tax cut = lower prices / higher wages, no tax cut = prices / wages stay the same", then who cares what the "spin" is?

LOL how populist. Trump saves the day!

Look. I understand the desire to overhaul tax codes. I even get how conservatives want to help out their rich buddies while liberals tend to give to the poor. It's how democracy works. BUT. Especially clueless populists 'lowering' taxes usually comes right back at you. Because no, they don't actually lower them. The just hide them better or refinance the generous gift with more debt. Which in turn creates more interest to pay. Which has to come from somewhere.

Rick being wrong aside, the fact that an electric company is heavily regulated on the price front and that they are legally obligated to pass the savings on seems germaine. That the same company is getting sued by said regulator for illegally raising rates at the exact same time and now the company agrees to lower rates due to this lawsuot yet claims it is due to an inrelated third party event? Yeah, that isn't at all believable.

Trumps 1.6 billion in new debt, if you believe the Republican claim which no real economist does, it is more like $2.1 trillion in a best case scenario, is a future obligation which swamps the people of Arizona's $2 rate decrease on their electric bill.

Hey if you burn the walls of your house to keep warm, you won't freeze to death. That's all that matters, right?

Packard has it right.

I drop my prices for the public sector, partially out of benevolence.

The one time I genuinely dropped my prices purely out of benevolence was an education. It was for a charidee, and taught me that the recipient of benevolence fails to appreciate the act, the service or their responsibilities.

Price is, sadly, a mechanism to guarantee someone has a reason not to fuck you around when they've got to justify the ledger.

With Trump's tax overhaul, it's going to be a while before we see if it works or not.

The US' corp tax was way too high anyway, and higher rates benefit larger companies able to make use of scaled-up tax avoidance thus providing them the ability to undercut smaller competitors.

And generally companies with lower true corp tax rates tend to offer higher salaries and better employee benefits (corp tax is effectively a tax on employees and shareholders) - much of that depends on margins, volume and the competition for skills of course - than those who don't.

So if you're in a job where you can walk out of your current employers and have recruiters on your phone before you've exited the car park, chances are you've got a nice pay raise on the horizon or at least a shiny new coffee machine and various other comforts to keep you a happy drone.

If you're in a job where walking out of your current employers means starving in the gutter, life is pretty much still going to suck.

But that's not what it comes down to without spin.

Those are the spin-free bare facts. You can take those facts and add window dressing to them if you like, but at the end of the day, the bare facts are still true.

It is not "spin free" to attribute lower prices to the tax cut. That's the entire point.

Yes, this.

If the lower prices were not going to happen without the tax cut (which so far no one has refuted or even addressed), then the tax cut is the modulating factor for the lower prices. THAT is the entire point.

Many have addressed it, and I don't see how anyone can refute an unprovable fantasy. But even if the price cut hadn't happened without the tax cut, that doesn't mean that the tac cut couldn't happen without the price cut; and neither would mean that there aren't additional causes or consequences. At which point the whole thing just becomes silly, so let's try something concrete instead.

Assume that you are an employee, and that for whatever reason, tax cut or any other, your wages increase. Do you pass this increase on to your grocery by overpaying the next time you shop there?

If your answer is anything from "No" to "not necessarily", then you should understand that likewise, believing that a tax cut inevitably leads to higher wages is obvious bullshit.

No one is arguing "a tax cut inevitably leads to higher wages".

The argument is, "this tax cut has led to higher wages / bonuses or lower prices".

Unless people can come up with a real reason why these things would have happened anyway in the absence of this tax cut, your protestations are all just speculation.