In Part 1, I laid out the background for the US/Mexico "Totalization Agreement,"an arrangement, similar to others entered into with other countries since the late 1970s, which has the primary aim of eliminating double taxation for social security purposes. Ordinarily, this is just the sort of thing one would expect Ron Paul to be leading the charge for. But with Mexicans involved in the equation, it turns out, not so much. With the background out of the way, it's time for him to take center stage.
Totalization Agreements-A Capsule Recap
Totalizaiton agreements do two simple things:
(1) arrange things between two governments so that people and businesses don't suffer from double taxation, and
(2) arrange things between two government so that if people pay into two different social security systems, they can get credit for paying into both.
The overall logic, and salient particulars of the proposed US/Mexico Totalizaiton Agreement were discussed in Part 1. And so, without further ado, we turn to...
OH NO! Not ANOTHER Ron Paul Diary! Well, yes, and a rather arcane subject, to boot. But there's a method to this madness, based on the premises that (a) everything is connected, (b) the universe is a fractal, and (c) you can sometimes learn the most by examining seemingly secondary matters where the BS defenses are weaker. Furthermore, picking apart a far right movement candidate is important for the larger purpose of reflecting, yet again, on the lack of symmetry between left and right in America today. Part 1 lays out the basics of the issue. Part 2 gets into how Ron Paul completely misrepresented it, taking the the exact opposite of his his usual anti-tax position.
Arguably Ron Paul's greatest bugaboo is cutting taxes. As a doctor, quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if someday he didn't recommend cutting taxes as a cure for the common cold. So imagine my surprise when I discovered a tax cut he's opposed to!
Well, I wasn't really surprised. You see, the tax cut was for Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, Americans working in Mexico, and the companies that employ them. And when it comes to Mexicans-or anything hinting of them-Ron Paul has a tendency to, well, let's just say that he claims he's not a racist. But actions speak louder than words. And here is one blindingly clear example where Ron Paul opposes cutting taxes. In fact, he can't even bring himself to accurately describe what he's even talking about. So I'll have to do it for him.
The issue at hand is what's called a "Totalization Agreement," that harmonizes the payroll tax-collecting policies between two countries that both have social insurance systems (like Social Security). Such agreements started in Western Europe, where the phenomena of citizens from one country working in another has long been a common one. Without such agreements it was commonplace for both individuals and the companies that employed them to be taxed by both governments.
Clearly, this is not fair. Anyone can see that. Anyone except Ron Paul, that is. Here we have a classic example of the kind of situation that Paul is always railing against-an unfair tax burden-but unlike many of the situations where he imagines that burdens are unfair, or simply assumes it, for no clearly defensible reason, this situation is so obviously unfair that it only needs to be described to be seen as unfair. All of which leads us to question his purported motivation in raising the issue of "unfair tax burdens" in so many other situations. If that was really his concern, he would be championing the cause of totalizaiton with every country in the world. Instead, he is bitterly opposed to a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico. And that smells just a wee bit like racism to me.
But, go ahead, jump to the flip, and smell for yourself.
