To the Editor:
I willingly admit that I am not educated enough to understand all of the sophisticated terminology in John Hood’s column on the Opinion page of your Sept. 20 edition, but I have common sense enough to understand the inadvertent connection to Grey Ammons’ letter on the same page. Concerning “…the potential economic effects of state and local tax policy,” does reducing tax rates on business income have economic benefits? The answer is in Mr. Ammons’ reference to the “old QualPak building,” which in reality is a new building in comparison to our county’s vacant textile mills, two of which are now demolished.
Originally, the QualPak building, built in my young adult years, housed Abbott Laboratories. Workers from our county and throughout our region left cotton fields and mills to enjoyed work and wages we had never fathomed. While paying higher income taxes, Abbott workers bought and built new homes, and purchased new vehicles their former employment did not afford, and paid higher property taxes as a result. Then, political leaders annexed that totally self-sufficient plant with absolutely no need of city services into Laurinburg’s city limits, making that exemplary employer and corporate county citizen subject to city taxes for unneeded city services. The results? An empty modern building briefly occupied by QualPak!
Considering the fact that managers, employees and stockholders of corporations are taxpayers, isn’t taxation of corporate employers double taxation? Why should job creators be taxed at all? What is the result, other than creating another reason to close manufacturing facilities and move them to third-world countries? How has taxing manufacturing industries benefited our nation, or the third-world nations where sub-standard buildings burn or collapse on virtual slaves making $38.00 per month producing “foreign?” goods with American brand names? Who benefits from globalization, other than globalists exploiting cheap foreign labor and U.S. markets simultaneously? Has globalization’s cheap labor reduced prices for American consumers, or increased profits for corporations using the excessive taxation excuse to abandon the American workers who contributed to their original success, and our nation which provided their original opportunity?
Rather than offer tax incentives in the continual battle to attract available industries, why not eliminate taxation of all corporate job creators, and benefit from the increased tax revenue the increased salaries, wages and dividends their executives, workers and stockholders would create? After all, thanks to our exceptional right to a free press, haven’t we seen credible evidence that corporations enjoy “loopholes” that allow them to avoid taxation anyway? Would we benefit from eliminating income and property tax on corporations, while simultaneously reinstating the tariff and duty system that made our nation the greatest economic power in human history, before globalization created the greatest recession since the Great Depression?
Robert C. Currie Jr.