September 27, 2017
Page 13
Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views of the
Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and
story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com.
O PINION
Finding a Common Language on Climate
J ill R iChaRdson
If you don’t al-
ready agree with me
on something, odds
are I can’t convince
you I’m right.
There’s plenty of
science showing that the global climate
crisis is already affecting us, that vac-
cines don’t cause autism, and that hu-
mans evolved from a common ancestor
with apes. Yet many Americans don’t
believe in man-made climate change,
the safety of vaccines, or human evo-
lution.
For the two-thirds of Americans
who believe in human-caused climate
change, the future is terrifying. If you
fall in the other third, try to imagine for
a moment how you’d feel if you did be-
lieve the planet was warming, ice caps
were melting, seas were rising, and
weather was getting more extreme.
A new study found a 5 percent that
the climate crisis could reach cata-
strophic levels by 2050, and a smaller
by
chance — but still a chance — it could
wipe out all of humanity.
I’ll be honest: I’m scared. Scared
enough to seriously consider wheth-
er it would be wise or ethical to have
children. And I’m frustrated and angry
that our country isn’t doing enough to
prevent the coming crisis.
I don’t want to take away anyone’s
car or air conditioning. I don’t want to
force anyone to go vegetarian, or limit
the number of children Americans can
have. There must be a way to decrease
pollution and roll back the clock on
climate change without compromising
our lifestyles in an intolerable way.
But it won’t happen while we’re all
bickering about whether or not the cli-
mate crisis is happening in the first place.
I can imagine how this looks to
someone who doesn’t believe the cli-
mate is changing. Some treehugger
wants you to turn your life upside
down for a made-up climate crisis that
isn’t even happening. No way.
While the disagreement is most of-
ten on scientific terms, actual scientists
don’t have any doubt at this point. The
question isn’t whether the climate is
changing, but how fast it’s changing
and what will happen as a result.
But it’s only a small percentage of
Americans who are truly scientifical-
ly literate. It takes a lot of education
— not to mention time and access to
academic journals — to actually comb
through the literature and find the facts
as researchers see them.
Most of us just base our conclusions
on media reports of scientific studies or
one of Al Gore’s movies.
Part of the problem is, perhaps, eco-
nomic. It’s nice to talk about switching
to clean energy, but that means jobs in
fossil fuel industries would go away.
So far, this country hasn’t done much
in the way of helping people transition
to new careers.
No environmentalist wants coal min-
ers or oil workers to be unemployed.
We want them to have well-paying, sat-
isfying jobs that allow them to live the
lifestyle they enjoy — without hurting
the planet.
The good news is that solar gener-
ation alone now employs more people
than oil, gas, and coal combined. But
in some places, the only alternatives
to good coal jobs, for example, may
be poorly paid service jobs with low-
er wages. Perhaps some people would
have to move (or else demand their
states invest more in renewables).
Ultimately, we need to find a com-
mon language to have a discussion, and
we need to get serious about providing
for anyone whose job will be lost by
switching to clean energy. Because
the alternative is doing nothing — and
then figuring out later how to help peo-
ple whose homes are under water from
sea level rise or increasingly violent
hurricanes.
OtherWords columnist Jill Richard-
son is the author of Recipe for Amer-
ica: Why Our Food System Is Broken
and What We Can Do to Fix It. Distrib-
uted by OtherWords.org.
Cutting Trump a Check from the Treasury
A billion or three
for guys like him
b ob l oRd
What’s the larg-
est personal stake a
U.S. president has
ever had in legislation
he signed into law?
Whatever it was, it’ll
be dwarfed by what
Donald Trump’s signature will be worth
— to himself — if Congress passes his
proposed tax plan and puts it on his desk.
If that happens, Trump will be effec-
tively cutting himself a check from the
U.S. Treasury for several billion dollars.
Call me cynical, but it seems that’s ex-
actly what Trump has in mind. His plan
just fits his tax situation — or what we
know of it, without access to his tax re-
turns — too perfectly.
The president’s tax proposal elimi-
nates two taxes that mostly benefit the
wealthy, and cuts a third tax roughly in
half. That would bestow a windfall worth
billions on the Trump family.
First, there’s the elimination of the al-
ternative minimum tax, or AMT.
The AMT applies to taxpayers whose
income tax liability otherwise would be
reduced excessively by certain deduc-
tions, including deductions common-
ly claimed by real estate owners like
Trump. It’s like an alternative tax system
in which the rates are lower but fewer de-
by
ductions are allowed.
The one glimpse we’ve had of Trump’s
tax returns suggests he stands to benefit
massively from the repeal of the AMT.
In 2005, Trump’s income exceeded $150
million, but his regular tax liability was
just $5.3 million — that’s barely a 3.5
percent tax rate.
But the AMT increased Trump’s tax li-
ability that year by over $31 million. Had
Trump’s tax plan been in effect in 2005,
it would’ve saved him that $31 million.
Still, that’s chump change in compar-
ison to the tax windfall he hopes to be-
stow upon himself by cutting the top tax
rate on the bulk of his income by more
than half, from nearly 40 percent to 15.
We’re not talking about the corporate
tax rate here. Trump could reap a tidy
personal benefit from slashing the cor-
porate income tax too, but the far big-
ger prize in his plan is its treatment of
income from businesses that don’t pay
corporate taxes.
Under current law, the income of
those businesses is taxed to their own-
ers at individual income tax rates. Under
Trump’s plan, income from those busi-
nesses would receive preferential tax
treatment, with a maximum tax rate of
15 percent.
That would be the final act in turning
our nation’s tax policy on its head.
In 1980, before Ronald Reagan’s elec-
tion, the maximum rate on workers’ wag-
es — earned income — was less than the
maximum rate applicable to all other types
of income except long-term capital gains.
Under Trump’s tax plan, the maxi-
mum tax rate workers pay, after account-
ing for employment taxes, will be higher
than the rate applicable to any other type
of income.
That means no matter how Trump in-
vests his billions — in real estate, bonds,
stocks, business ventures, etc. — the
income he generates would be taxed at
a rate lower than what workers pay on
their wages.
Trump’s preferential rate for business
income is unprecedented. Is it a coinci-
dence that the first politician to propose
it just happens to be a real estate magnate
with interests in literally hundreds of un-
incorporated businesses?
The biggest tax windfall Trump hopes
to secure for himself, however, is one he
won’t live to enjoy. I’m referring to the
estate tax, of course — a federal levy on
estates worth over $5.5 million for indi-
viduals.
Trump’s plan would eliminate that
tax, no matter how large the estate. For
Trump, that would mean as much as $1.4
billion on an estate estimated by Forbes
at $3.5 billion.
The bottom line: If Trump’s tax plan
passes, he’ll have secured for himself
billions in tax benefits in less than a year
as president. Not bad work if you can get
it, huh?
OtherWords columnist Bob Lord is a
veteran tax lawyer who practices and
blogs in Phoenix, Ariz. He’s an associate
fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.
Providing Insurance and Financial Services
Home Office, Bloomington, Illinois 61710
Ernest J. Hill, Jr. Agent
4946 N. Vancouver Avenue,
Portland, OR 97217
503 286 1103
Fax 503 286 1146
ernie.hill.h5mb@statefarm.com
24 Hour Good Neighbor Service R
State Farm R