What Path Taxation?
Part II
When last I blasted your ears with my plea for office, I noted that I would not raise taxes for anyone under the 50th percentile and probably not for anyone under the 75th percentile of earnings for this country. Why would I?
Many other politicians see these people as the perfect target for increased taxation. After all, these people - again, 75% of Americans - have little in the way of political clout, little influence over most elections. If their taxes rise, my opponents know that they will be all but powerless to oppose the rise.
I see things differently. You see, I followed the teachings of President Ronald Reagan, a man for whom I voted for president myself. (Only the second time he ran; I was a month too young to participate for his first run.) Mr. Reagan, who said that “nobody ever got a job from a poor man," was simply pointing out the obvious, that the rich create jobs. I depart from Mr. Reagan in only one way. For some twisted reason (that probably had something to do with the fact that Uncle Ronny took campaign contributions of any amount from anybody, something I will never do), that president actually lowered taxes on the wealthy, even when they failed to create jobs.
This is absolutely ludicrous. No one in their right mind bends over, gets spanked and then asks "Thank you, sir. May I have another?" With our current economy it's far worse, simply because we aren't being spanked.
In an age when jobs for the middle classes are rising, then yes, the wealthy members of our society that create and maintain these jobs should be rewarded for doing their civic duties. However, jobs for the middle class are collapsing. The market for these jobs is being moved as quickly as possible elsewhere, be that through automation, through overseas factory development, or - most insidiously - by denying workers the right to unionize.
Here's one example of which most of you have never heard. Back in 2009, a private firm broke ground on a $200 million grain terminal in at the Port of Longview, Washington. Before construction began, the firm was informed that the Port of Longview was a union port with longshore work done by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. The operator, an international consortium called Export Grain Terminal LLC, grudgingly agreed to proceed with construction. The construction used no local or union labor, with workers brought in as from the Midwest, South, and even Guatemala in an area with a soaring unemployment rate and ample ready workers.
When it came time to actually bring grain to the silos, however, the owners decided to balk and use non-union labor, prompting a protester blockade and the turn-back of a grain delivery. Before it moved even a single kernel, the operator decided to close the facility rather than concede to the local union's demands and face a (Gasp!) 2% increase in operating overhead.
For decades now, the operators of this terminal have been granted low taxes for the privilege of slashing the wages for those they employ. This is completely backward. You don't give a dog a treat if they bite, a pat on the head if they growl. Too many of the rich today are simply laying the groundwork for a future when, even though the reality of aging is working against them and every other employer, most unions will be crushed enough to only whimper at the injustices inflicted upon them.
When elected, I will establish a simple tax system that rewards the rich only when they deserve reward. For every year the median average worker's wages increases, I will work to lower taxes on those above the 75th percentile. However, should the median average worker's wages fall, the next year the wealthiest slice of our population should face even higher marginal tax rates. That would end only - and I do mean only - when the middle class wages start to recover.
It's only fair.
Addendum, the next morning: I added the spanking analogy for more flair. Consider it my forced journal entry.
When last I blasted your ears with my plea for office, I noted that I would not raise taxes for anyone under the 50th percentile and probably not for anyone under the 75th percentile of earnings for this country. Why would I?
Many other politicians see these people as the perfect target for increased taxation. After all, these people - again, 75% of Americans - have little in the way of political clout, little influence over most elections. If their taxes rise, my opponents know that they will be all but powerless to oppose the rise.
I see things differently. You see, I followed the teachings of President Ronald Reagan, a man for whom I voted for president myself. (Only the second time he ran; I was a month too young to participate for his first run.) Mr. Reagan, who said that “nobody ever got a job from a poor man," was simply pointing out the obvious, that the rich create jobs. I depart from Mr. Reagan in only one way. For some twisted reason (that probably had something to do with the fact that Uncle Ronny took campaign contributions of any amount from anybody, something I will never do), that president actually lowered taxes on the wealthy, even when they failed to create jobs.
This is absolutely ludicrous. No one in their right mind bends over, gets spanked and then asks "Thank you, sir. May I have another?" With our current economy it's far worse, simply because we aren't being spanked.
In an age when jobs for the middle classes are rising, then yes, the wealthy members of our society that create and maintain these jobs should be rewarded for doing their civic duties. However, jobs for the middle class are collapsing. The market for these jobs is being moved as quickly as possible elsewhere, be that through automation, through overseas factory development, or - most insidiously - by denying workers the right to unionize.
Here's one example of which most of you have never heard. Back in 2009, a private firm broke ground on a $200 million grain terminal in at the Port of Longview, Washington. Before construction began, the firm was informed that the Port of Longview was a union port with longshore work done by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. The operator, an international consortium called Export Grain Terminal LLC, grudgingly agreed to proceed with construction. The construction used no local or union labor, with workers brought in as from the Midwest, South, and even Guatemala in an area with a soaring unemployment rate and ample ready workers.
When it came time to actually bring grain to the silos, however, the owners decided to balk and use non-union labor, prompting a protester blockade and the turn-back of a grain delivery. Before it moved even a single kernel, the operator decided to close the facility rather than concede to the local union's demands and face a (Gasp!) 2% increase in operating overhead.
For decades now, the operators of this terminal have been granted low taxes for the privilege of slashing the wages for those they employ. This is completely backward. You don't give a dog a treat if they bite, a pat on the head if they growl. Too many of the rich today are simply laying the groundwork for a future when, even though the reality of aging is working against them and every other employer, most unions will be crushed enough to only whimper at the injustices inflicted upon them.
When elected, I will establish a simple tax system that rewards the rich only when they deserve reward. For every year the median average worker's wages increases, I will work to lower taxes on those above the 75th percentile. However, should the median average worker's wages fall, the next year the wealthiest slice of our population should face even higher marginal tax rates. That would end only - and I do mean only - when the middle class wages start to recover.
It's only fair.
Addendum, the next morning: I added the spanking analogy for more flair. Consider it my forced journal entry.