Unfair to Whom?

The subheadline to Mick Mulvaney’s op-ed in The Wall Street Journal drives the salient question:

The “global minimum tax” battle may set an example for those who consider low US state levies “unfair.”

This comes against the backdrop of President Joe Biden’s (D) and his Congressional Progressive-Democrat cronies’ drive to give our domestic economic sovereignty over to an international “agreement” concerning the proper levels of business taxes. That international gang, centered on the OECD, insists that more is better, more is fairer.

Fair to whom, though? Nor Biden, nor his cronies, nor his OECD BFFs are willing to say, beyond insisting that Government needs more and that tax competition is somehow unfair.

Into that void, I have to ask: what’s unfair about leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it? What’s unfair about leaving more money in the hands the private enterprises whose production produced the business incomes that are being taxed?

In the absence of those Betters’ answers, I’ll supply my own.

It’s eminently fair to leave those monies in the hands and coffers of those who generated the income.

What’s fair is the Progressive-Democrat Yellen-disparaged race to the taxing bottom. That’s the most money left in the hands of the economic generators.

On the Verge

…not only regarding the vast damage that will be done to our economy by President Joe Biden (D) and his deliberately anti-bipartisan Progressive-Democrat cronies with their soon to be unilaterally inflicted spend- and tax-o-rama bills.

Biden’s Progressive-Democrat Treasury Secretary is about to surrender American national sovereignty to an international consortium in the form of putting our Congress’ Constitutionally mandated taxing authority under the control of an international taxing agreement.

The Wall Street Journal worries about Congress’ careful silence on the matter and the paper’s editors are right.

The only saving grace, such as it is, to Yellen’s behavior and Congress’ complicit silence is that Yellen and her cronies will be able to enter into such disastrous tax agreement only via a Biden-executed Executive Agreement, and that sort of thing can be undone with a pen by the next President. The Yellen Tax Abrogation will not become a treaty so long as there are 34 Senators who care about American national sovereignty.

The destruction wreaked in the interim, though, will be broad and deep.

The Wealth Gap Is…

…narrowing? How can that be? All those tax cuts and all those economic moves of the prior administration—which ended just 6 months ago—were playing to the favored rich. Weren’t they?

No.

A fading pandemic and heating US economy appear to be paying off for lower-wage workers.
New jobs at restaurants, hotels, stores, salons, and similar in-person roles accounted for about half of all payroll gains in June, according to the Labor Department. And workers in those industries are seeing larger raises than other employees.

They’re also seeing actual jobs, with those raises being from zero to paychecks.

Most of that, too, is in those roughly half the States who’ve lifted most or all Wuhan Virus-related restrictions and mostly or fully reopened their economies.

Go figure.

Another Progressive-Democrat Gives Another Part of the Game Away

Laura Saunders, in her Friday Wall Street Journal column concerning the Roth IRAs, the rich and deplorable, and us average Americans, has a striking quote from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D, OR).

Saunders was writing about how efforts to lay punitive limits and punitive taxes on the Roth IRAs of the super wealthy can only have deleterious effects on the rest of us.

Here’s Wyden’s statement on the matter:

IRAs were designed to provide retirement security to middle-class families, not allow mega-millionaires and billionaires to avoid paying taxes[.]

Wyden has two beefs here. One is his progressive view that the wealthy don’t deserve to be under the same law as the rest of us Americans; the success of the wealthy must be called out and that success denied them—because the rich are the piñata of government disfavored groups of Americans.

The other is that business about avoiding paying taxes. Never mind that the rich and deplorable—and the merely rich—already pay the vast bulk of the taxes the Federal government collects, while the bottom half of income earners pay close to nothing in taxes, and the very bottom—including those who don’t have any job-related income—get tax payments from the rest of us. The amount the rich pay isn’t enough for Progressive-Democrats. More is better.

All of it is better, yet.

Repealing SALT

John Tamny, FreedomWorks’ Center for Economic Freedom Director, wants the SALT deduction cap repealed, and he thinks all Republicans should agree with him.

Among the several Tamny rationalizations for why Republicans should leap at the chance to repeal SALT is this gem.

Repealing the SALT cap might not restore that vision [convolutedly, of limited government], but it would direct money away from Washington and toward states and localities.

No. A better way, the only truly effective way and the only legitimate way, to direct money away from Washington and toward states and localities is to end altogether the interstate transfer of taxpayer monies.

The money us citizens allocate to our various government jurisdictional levels are best left within those jurisdictions entirely. Taxes allocated to our central government should be exclusively for the Constitutional purposes of paying the national debt, funding a defense establishment adequate to defeating external threats, and seeing to our nation’s general Welfare as enumerated in Art I, Sect 8. Those taxes allocated to our respective States and lower jurisdictions are best left within those jurisdictions, subject to the requirements and specifications the citizens of each State set for their State.

The only legitimate interstate transfer of tax dollars is in response to a declaration of a regional or national emergency.