Positively Pro-American Tax Dodges
by Paul Dowling
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”
Freedom Means Low Tax Burdens
Allowing people as much freedom for themselves as possible is a correct principle. Since financial freedom promotes more personal liberty and general welfare overall, keeping tax burdens low would be a correct principle, as well.
Low taxes benefit the poor, because they are burdened less and can save more money. This is rewarding, not only with regard to attainment of more financial freedom, but more self-esteem as well.
The middle-class benefits from low taxes, because they can set aside more money for old age or to start businesses. These businesses hire employees on an ongoing basis in order to expand. This kind of activity benefits the poor and the middle-class alike.
Low taxes benefit the wealthy, because they can then give more to charitable foundations and causes, put more money into growing their investments, and save more—which increases the money supply available to banks for lending.
Low taxes benefit the government, too, since low tax burdens encourage American businesses to keep their operations in the US and also act as an incentive to foreign companies to move their operations to America.
Low Taxes Increase Tax Collections
In an expanding economy, at lower tax rates, the collection of taxes goes up. This happens, due to higher employment, more business expansion, more business immigration, and an increase in sales from people’s keeping more of their money. After Kennedy cut taxes by 20%, the economy boomed and tax collections went up.
After Reagan cut taxes, the economy went on a 25-year expansion that did not slow down until taxes started to go up under Obama. Reagan’s tax collections went up, but the inability of Congressional Democrats to limit spending caused bigger deficits. Thus, a deficit mounted which Democrats, dishonestly, proceeded to blame on the Reagan tax cut.
Going Out of Business Is Not Patriotic
Allan Sloan, a senior editor at Fortune Magazine, wrote an article entitled “Positively un-American tax dodges.” In it, he accuses companies that move out of the country to avoid high business taxes of being “un-American.” He would prefer that these companies stay in the country, although that might mean many of them would have to go out of business.
In true leftist style, Sloan writes the following: “Bigtime companies are moving their ‘headquarters’ overseas to dodge billions in taxes . . . that means the rest of us pay their share.” But is staying in the US better for a company, if the high taxes cause the company to go out of business? And if they go out of business, how much of their “fair share” can they pay then? Is it really more pro-American to let the company fail altogether, when moving could have saved its profitability and kept it afloat? Is allowing every single American employee of the company to go unemployed better than being labeled “un-American” by Obama and his cronies?
Jobs & the Shaming of Obama
Steve Jobs once shamed President Obama for not cutting business taxes in America by at least 50%. As a result, Jobs was forced to make the decision to manufacture his new iPhones in Shanghai, China, in order to remain profitable. And nobody, Democrat or Republican, ever called Steve Jobs “un-American.”
Jobs said he wanted to make the iPhones in America, but doing so under existing tax rates would have been bad business and would have harmed the company and its ability to employ those already working for it. Paying the US tax of 35%, he said, would raise Apple prices too high to be competitive. If there were no iPhones, all Americans who sell them domestically, transport them to cellular outlets, or service them at repair centers would be without jobs. Making the phones employs more Americans than not making the phones—even though the iPhones are made in China. It is Obama and the Democrats who are being greedy. Apple just wants to stay in business.
Government Is Un-Patriotic Not to Cut Taxes
The US government should cut business taxes by half to bring manufacturing back to the US. Collecting all of a 17% or 18% tax is better than collecting none of a 35% tax! The reason for Chinese production is not the cheaper labor. Savings on labor is offset by the cost of shipping products into the US for domestic distribution. If the 35% business tax were lowered by more than half, numerous businesses would stay in the US or move into the country to be more profitable. Many workers around the world would get to keep their jobs, who otherwise would have lost them due to the comparatively higher tax rates of their own lands.
The US could single-handedly make many foreign companies profitable, who otherwise would have gone out of business! This kind of foreign aid would be the most moral and the most sustainable aid America could give. It would be a true win/win for America and for the global community.
More Freedom for All Is the Patriotic Recipe
Mr. Sloan suggests punitive legislation to force Americans to give up citizenship, if their businesses move offshore. Sloan is all about coercion and sticks, without much regard for freedom and carrots. But, for an economy to work properly, the stick must be spared in favor of the carrot; free markets with low tax burdens facilitate more businesses, more products, more choices, and more freedom. People and businesses vote with their feet. And allowing the US to reach a point where many no longer consider it the best place in the world to live or do business . . . that, my friends, is un-American! Not the behavior of freedom-loving businesses that leave for the greener pastures of lower taxes, fewer sticks, and more freedom.
Don’t believe us? Just ask uber-Liberals like Robert Redford!
Actor Robert Redford is suing the state of New York for what he says are unfair taxes from the sale of the Sundance Channel.
Mr. Redford, a Utah resident, sued the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in Albany County Supreme Court on July 30, claiming that he’s being doubly taxed on money his company made when it sold off its portion of the channel in 2005, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
New York is taxing the actor-director $845,066 plus $727,404 in interest owed — roughly $1.57 million — for the money he made in the sale, but Mr. Redford said he already paid taxes on the revenue in Utah.
(See even socialists LOVE dodging taxes…)
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com