Andrew Gillum, endorsed by socialist Bernie Sanders, is the Democratic gubernatorial nominee for Florida. The following is from his “Economy and Jobs” webpage as it appeared October 7, 2018:
Andrew has proposed the “Fair Share for Florida’s Future” Plan to finally make real investments in our public schools and working families – and ask the richest corporations to pay a little more of their fair share.
“… fair share”? Exactly how does Gillum define this term? Exactly at what point does a share become “fair” or “unfair”? We hear this term by adolescents and the left all the time. Now Gillum, as a candidate for governor, is proposing an increase (that is, “a little more”) in corporate taxes based on it. So what exactly does it mean? By exactly what standards does Gillum decide that the current rate is “unfair” and that his proposed rate would be “fair,” or “more fair”?
“… real investments in our public schools”? Through state and local expenditures, Florida spends in excess of $20 billion annually on public education. Exactly what is “unreal” about those expenditures?
“… the richest corporations”? So Gillum is not going to have all corporations pay their “fair share,” but only the “richest” ones? That is, he’s going to have a progressive corporate tax rate? What exactly will that progressive rate be?
By adjusting our state corporate tax level to a modest 7.75%, which allows our richest corporations to receive a tax cut and keeps our corporate tax rate more than 1% lower than California, we’ll be able to recoup at least $1 billion and put it where we need it most – investing in our future.
“… 7.75%”? Yes, that’s what (on top of the 21% federal tax) the richest will pay, but what will “not richest” corporations pay? Where is the progression of the rate? Or is there is no progression? Then why does Gillum suggest that there is?
(Is it because, on people, Florida has no state income tax? Which means that Gillum cannot target “rich people” – it has to be “rich corporations” instead? Because, whatever the proposal is, the word “rich” – to suggest that someone else will be paying – has to be included?)
“… a modest 7.75%”? Mr. Gillum fails to disclose that current rate is 5.5%, making Gillum’s proposal a 2.25% increase over that rate. A 2.25% increase over a 5.5% increase is a 41% increase. If Gillum paid rent (and “the richest corporations” did not pay it for him) and it went from $500 to $705, or $1,000 to $1,410, would he call that a “modest” increase? keep reading
SNIP: FFS! This dude is 0bama + Hillary on Speed.