by John Brian Shannon | December 5, 2016
Donald Trump won the 2016 election in an upset defeating the expected winner Hillary Clinton, because to voters, he represented change while Hillary represented the status quo.
His potential second term in office four years on, depends upon one thing; Will he have addressed the concerns of those who voted for him?
Disaffected and disillusioned voters put Mr. Trump into office. And just who are those people?
They’re the bottom-two economic quintiles, with some votes coming from the other quintiles, to be sure. But protest votes aren’t cast by those happy with their lot in life — which is to say; The Wealthy.
The protest voters are those among the 100 million that have given up looking for work — not the wholly unrealistic 4.9% official unemployment rate statistic, which shouldn’t ever be considered a metric on it’s own. It’s a junk stat. Not true at all. Meaningless.
Any official unemployment stat should tell the whole truth — both regular unemployed’s, long term unemployed’s that have simply ‘given up’ looking for work, and it should include those on welfare willing to work (if they could find a job that would pay them enough to cover their basic needs) because most of those people were workers until their jobs were off-shored and their income tax contributions ended.
If Donald Trump solves inequality or even beats it back to a reasonable degree, he will likely win a second term in office; It will mean he listened to his constituents
Solving it via government handouts seems to be ‘out’ in a Trump administration but solving inequality via a $1 trillion infrastructure plan seems eminently reasonable, logical, and inspires hope for individuals and will work to add confidence to markets.
If 100 million people were to ‘suddenly’ get jobs (that’s the 100 million unemployed over and above the false official stat of 4.9%) in the United States over the next four years, watch the economy leap forward, the debt-to-GDP stat fall, total tax revenue will surge dramatically, and deficit spending could (and should) become a thing of the past.
Revenue-neutral? I’d like to hear more about that!
Privatizing America’s national parks? Confiscating the wealth of the 1 percent? Selling NASA to a group headed by Elon Musk? Selling the SouthWest to Mexico?
There are all kinds of ways to raise $1 trillion dollars to fund a national infrastructure program, but do we really want to do those things? Not really.
Well… selling NASA to Elon Musk (were he able to raise such a huge amount of capital) could inject some interesting entrepreneurial vigor into that legendary administration.
Incentivizing corporations via tax relief always results in more profits but rarely results in more infrastructure spending. Proved history on that
So where will that trillion come from?
IF ‘The Donald’ is thinking American citizens and U.S. corporations will invest in America’s infrastructure by buying ‘road building bonds’ and thereby lower their overall tax bill, it’s a brilliant plan
For individuals or corporations buying such bonds, whatever money they put toward it should be considered ‘taxation-free’ money by the IRS. (No tax payable on any money used to buy national road building bonds, and no tax payable on those bond dividends)
American citizens, U.S. corporations, and U.S. investor groups should get first dibs on it. From a psychological perspective, having American citizens and U.S. corporations ‘buying-in’ to such a goal is almost as good as getting the investment itself.
After two years it could be opened up to non-Americans and global institutional investors.
Also, the U.S. corporate tax rate should be harmonized to Canada’s lower corporate tax rate.
That should’ve been a part of the original NAFTA agreement, and it’s still not too late to add it in.
It’s ridiculous that the NAFTA partners have three different corporate taxation levels
Remember when senior executives at Burger King wanted to move their corporate HQ to Canada to save billions in taxes?
I’m sure it’s not the only example that wreaked havoc in the political relations between NAFTA partners and caused some to wonder if America’s commitment to ‘Free Trade’ was serious, as the proposed Burger King move was overruled by the Obama administration.
You either believe in Free Trade or you don’t, you can’t have it both ways. Capitalism OR Statism — your choice.
With a corporate tax rate standardized to the lowest of the three NAFTA partner countries (Canada’s is the lowest) such moves and threats of moves, would become a thing of the past, while the lower tax rate would find some of those extra profits moving to U.S. infrastructure spending, “To Make America Great” again.
Finally, the UK should be invited to join NAFTA and match their corporate tax rate with Canada/U.S.A./Mexico
Such trade harmonization will lead to better political relations and less economic infighting between existing and potential NAFTA partners, concomitant with a trillion dollars earmarked for federal infrastructure spending courtesy of a tax-free road building bond scheme.
That’s the way to ‘Make America Great’
- Will Trump’s Plan Really Boost US Demand? (Project Syndicate)