He Said That? 6/7/15

Connecticut’s Democratic governor and Democratic-dominated legislature just increased both corporate and individual taxes, after promising not to during their 2014 election campaigns. General Electric is headquartered in Connecticut. The company complained that the state is “retroactively raising taxes again,” which “makes businesses, including our own, and citizens seriously consider whether it makes any sense to continue to be located in this state.” That’s a straightforward declaration that even obtuse politicians can understand. Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE and not one of SLL’s most admired corporate leaders (see “Peak Financial Engineering,” SLL, 4/4/15), had his say. He told an assembly of the company’s Connecticut employees that he has “assembled an exploratory team to look into the company’s options to relocate corporate HQ to another state with a more pro-business environment.” Again, a straightforward declaration—so far, so good. Then he ruined it.

I believe we should pay our fair share and that all of us should give back to our communities. We can compare Connecticut with other states where small and large businesses have a better environment to thrive and compete.

The Wall Street Journal, “Connecticut Tax Boomerang,” 6/6-6/7/15

Ayn Rand voiced frustration at executives and entrepreneurs who defended capitalism by the moral standards of their opponents. Just being in business, providing jobs, improving their communities, and paying taxes, Connecticut’s productive, profitable businesses do far more for Connecticut than its politicians, Maybe Immelt thinks they’re only bromides, but what is a “fair share,” and why should productive citizens and businesses have to “give back”? It is they who have been “taken from,” and by paying homage to the hypocritical standards of capitalism’s opponents, he gives them all the ammunition they need. After all, who’s to say what is a “fair share” and how much should be given back? Capitalism allows individuals to produce, sell their services, contract, and voluntarily exchange with other individuals. It is the economics of free minds, free markets, and free people, and that is its moral justification. It is harmed, not helped, when it’s putative practitioners do not defend it in terms of that freedom which is its foundation.