Robin Hood, or the sheriff? Whatever works

Matt Pearl

Our divided ideologies in this nation have given us two choices in our economic views.

We must be either Robin Hood ,or the Sheriff of Nottingham.

I guess that’s fine if you think the general economic and social operations of this nation fall under the codes set forth in popular medieval fantasy.

I, for one, believe the best answer lies somewhere north of socialism and south of feudalism.

And most folks act like they agree with me, then go ahead and vote for Robin or the sheriff at the polls.

I do my share of that myself.

A first option we are given is to submit economic control to our government as job creator, salary determiner, and business personnel director for each of us.

Our second option is to deregulate everything, which has the potential to usher in a new industrial revolution — complete with slave labor.

I choose neither.

Where’s the candidate who can promise and deliver a system with a few better choices?

Trump and Hillary are the names we’re hearing over and over, but each of them embodies the extreme viewpoints that I have seen damage the nation’s economy for too long now.

Again, the only suggested solutions are either to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, forsaking any modern regulation on the business community — or to regulate everything so closely that the hands of business are completely tied.

The tax, benefit and salary payout burdens that go with the latter are scary, not for Walmart or Hobby Lobby, but for guys like me, who have a handful or employees and are not getting rich.

And going back to pre-industrial American standards of how to tax business, that one isn’t going to work. The wealthy owners of corporations nationwide have ways calculated to sideskirt each of the extremes, and their message is clear:

“Either lower my taxes and loosen up my Obamacare obligations, or I’m going to start firing people,” they cry.

They have that power, and that right.

But let’s not give them quite so much motivation to do so.

I feel strongly that greed is going nowhere; it is part of the human experience and a stone around our necks. We may hope only to give greed the right incentive to benefit the rest of us.

Tax breaks don’t seem to do much, in my observation.

The boss keeps a little more, points to his cash flow and makes a somewhat believable claim that he has as many workers hired as the company’s income justifies.

Tax hikes, on the other hand, he can prove are hindering him, and he can also justify hiring fewer people and maintaining his salary.

Nothing works, ultimately, when we count on Uncle Sam to come up with the magic fix.

So we go after the other end of the problem, the minimum wage, and invite McDonald’s to replace workers with machines, or simply to close stores.

Those restaurants only exist to make the corporation money. If the numbers say there are too many, why would they keep the excess stores running?

If we could cure greed, then we would change the game, but we can’t do that.

I don’t have the answer, but I’m also not running for President of the United States of America.

My expectations are high. Give me the candidate who has an idea, something reasonable, moderate, and effective.

You have 14 months -— GO!