Talking Points

My raison d'etre for participating in social media has been to expose as many people as possible to my writing (and hopefully encourage them to purchase/recommend my books). Because of this, I often pause before jumping into discussions of subjects that are not directly related to writing. As an author, one thing I've learned over the years is that my readership surprisingly covers a wide spectrum of differing interests and beliefs. Politically, they run the gamut from extreme right to far left, and I truly appreciate them all.

Nonetheless, I have not lost pride in my ability to mount a logical and consistent argument whenever current events are discussed. Lately I've found myself in situations where friends have rather vocal opinions about government policy. The topics have included climate change and tax policy among many others. Of course these subjects are continually in the news and have engendered polarizing, albeit somewhat superficial views among those who follow current events. Nearly everyone has adopted a position that either conforms to their core beliefs, their political persuasion, or a distinct distaste for some personality who espouses an opposing view. People on the right hate the likes of Olbermann, Maddow and Obama; those on the left despise O'Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh. And this is far from a complete list. But both sides are ready to vigorously defend their positions with talking points that have been fed to them by their "heroes."

I have, on occasion, honestly found fault with both sides in these disputes. But what bothers me most are arguments that blatantly disregard logic, or focus on a fallacious premise. I have one example in mind to illustrate my point.

The talking point in defense of not raising taxes on corporations or the rich: "We don't want to raise taxes on the very people who create jobs!"

As a former business executive, I find this position humorous. The people who parrot this canard obviously don't understand the fundamentals of what business is about. I speak from experience when I say I have participated in many high level business meetings during my career, none of which ever discussed how my company could add more personnel. I did, on the other hand, participate in several conversations about how the company could eliminate personnel. I also sat in on strategy sessions about how we could pay fewer taxes, eliminate worker benefits, and increase productivity without increasing staff.

To those who don't understand how the system works, let me explain: Business is all about making money, the more the better. In fact, corporate executives are incentivized to increase profits because the more money a corporation makes, the more money there is to flow down into the executives' pockets.

People cost money, hence the fewer you can get by with the better the profit. For the same reason, the lower wages workers are paid the better, and the more profit you realize. People require care and feeding; they have to be managed; given benefits such as time off for paid holidays, sickness, or other personal problems. In other words, companies look at workers simply as numbers—a necessary evil and a drag on profits. To paint corporations as munificent saviors of the working class is not only absurd, it is risible. Yet we have seemingly intelligent people willing to make an argument for lower taxes based on job creation, a position that is fundamentally untrue. No matter what the American worker makes, it will always be more attractive for corporations to ship jobs offshore to lower their costs. And, until the standard of living in the third world becomes comparable to ours, this will always be true.

So, let's stop trying to make the silly case that lower taxes will create jobs by giving incentives for corporations to hire workers. That's never happened before and isn't going to happen now. Simple logic will tell you that.