And?
Motives aside, why didn't they do that for their employees earlier? For those who believe the claim that lower corporate taxes will encourage companies to either increase payroll or invest more money in the company, maybe you should think about how taxes, and corporate income and expenses work.
Companies get to deduct their operating expenses from their gross income, so money paid as salaries or bonuses, and reinvestment in the company isn't taxable income. Imagine that after all of their deductions a company ends up with $100 million of taxable income. With a 35% tax rate they pay $35 million and have $65 million left. With a tax rate of 20% they pay $20 million and have $80 million left. Alternatively, since operating expenses are deductible the company could spend $100 million on salaries, bonuses, and reinvestment in the company. At the end of the year they've got a taxable income of $0 instead of $100 million, so there's no profit at all, but they were able to put $100 million into the company and employees instead of paying taxes and only having $65 or $80 million to spend. Despite the hoopla from some quarters, giving companies a tax break doesn't give them more money to spend on wages or to invest in the company.
OTOH, since dividends on stocks are paid with after-tax profit a lower tax rate does give them more money that can be used to pay dividends. That has the benefit of increasing the income of the stockholders, but has no more economic benefit than giving the same amount to employees. Of course some of the employees may be are stockholders. Some of the mere worker bees may own stock, but those in upper management are almost certainly stockholders. There will also be some middle class people who are stockholders, but the richer people are the more likely it is that they'll own stocks, and they'll own more than those with less money.
A corporate tax break doesn't give corporations more money to spend on employees or growing the company, but it could provide more benefit to the rich because of the dividends. Paying bigger dividends could also increase the stock's value, allowing stockholders to make more money and pay long-term capital gains tax rates, too, also offering more benefit to those with more money.
"I will FINALLY be able to write off my private jet maintenance!"
It may be fair to characterize that provision of the tax bill as a tax break for people who own private jets (AKA rich people), but it's not about deductions for maintenance. When you buy an airline ticket you pay a federal excise tax based on the ticket's price, but if you own your own plane you don't buy a ticket when you fly on it, so you don't pay a federal tax. There's also been an exemption for corporate aircraft that was loaned to a management company since 1958. Since then the marketplace created a 3rd kind of ownership. That's fractional ownership where a management company sells shares of a jet to people (or companies). I'm sure you've heard of NetJets even if you're not really familiar with what they do. The provision in the tax bill clarifies that the fractional ownership model is also exempt from the federal excise tax on the cost of transportation.
As for deducting maintenance costs, that depends on ho owns the jet and what it's used for. If you own a jet and use it for personal use then the maintenance isn't deductible, just like maintenance on your car isn't deductible if you only use the car for personal stuff. OTOH, use of the jet may qualify as a business deduction. For NetJets the maintenance costs, as well as costs for pilots, fuel, landing fees, etc are legitimate business expenses, because their business includes managing and maintaining the jest that are owned by the fractional owners. Those fractional owners, OTOH, pay various fees to NetJets that are only deductible if their using the jet for business reasons. Again comparing it to your car, the fees related to any particular flight ae only deductible if you'd get a deduction if you drove your car instead of flying.
Of course when you own a private jet there's a pretty good chance you can manage to write off a lot of flight time that offers you the chance for some personal R&R. Maybe you're aware of how many medical and business conferences happen in places like Hawaii or the Caribbean. Go to one of those and your airfare, hotel, meals, rental car, and some other expenses are probably deductible. Only 1 hour of conference per day for your week's stay in Antigua, forcing you to spend hours snorkeling, scuba diving, or just lounging on the beach? No problem, it's still a deductible trip. Get somebody to run a brief conference on medicine and diving and even your scuba diving might be deductible.
And of course everything is deductible until it's disallowed during an audit.
I agree with your comments Think. A winner can afford all the professionals that are required. 
