From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Devon Westhill

Classic American companies like John Deere, Harley Davidson and Tractor Supply Co. are finally reevaluating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They are realizing that their consumers, many from rural, midwestern and working-class communities, don’t care for the DEI practices of corporate elites. They just want good service, reliable tractors and badass motorcycles.

The about-face is especially timely as the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action decision prohibiting race-based college admissions has increased scrutiny of private sector DEI practices. This new legal climate, combined with the discovery of problematic DEI programs at major American companies, means that corporations are at long last feeling significant pressure to prioritize excellence and efficiency over faddish diversity metrics.

Companies operating in the free market have one purpose: to provide quality goods and services to consumers in order to make a profit. For too long, much of corporate America has focused on virtue signaling to appease the left’s cultural mandates. Now, business incentives are forcing a return to the bottom line.

The change began in June when conservative commentator Robby Starbuck took to social media to expose companies masquerading as all-American brands with traditional values. He first exposed Tractor Supply’s DEI practices and announced that he would be investigating a list of other companies considered exemplars of Americana.

In response, Tractor Supply customers began boycotting the company, resulting in an 8% decrease in its stock price (a $2.8 billion market value loss) over five days. This led Tractor Supply to announce later that month the termination of its DEI programming. The company promised to stop submitting data for the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and withdrew sponsorship of LGBTQ+ pride events and voting campaigns, calling them “nonbusiness activities.”

Starbuck’s later exposure of John Deere’s DEI policies also caused the company to issue a statement announcing major cutbacks to their DEI programs. Harley Davidson, Jack Daniels and Lowe’s followed suit, preemptively terminating their DEI programs and standards.

All of these companies should be commended for abandoning excessive DEI and getting back to business.

Now, instead of requiring costly, time-intensive programs to prove their liberal bona fides, they can focus on delivering results for their customers. Free from worry about optics and bureaucratic compliance, they can hire the most qualified employees and let them rise to the top.

But these decisions are not without their naysayers. DEI proponents have labeled these moves as bullying from far-right extremists and claim that terminating these policies will encourage gender and race discrimination in the workplace.

This hysteria is unwarranted and relies on the absurd claim that without DEI standards, there can be no equality, inclusion or respect in the workplace. Of course, it is crucial that businesses cultivate a culture of respect and dignity. Employees should be educated on their protections and duties regarding civil rights and basic civility in the workplace. All of the companies reversing on DEI have remained committed to fostering respectful, safe cultures for their employees.

In fact, too much corporate DEI can wreak havoc on a company’s morale. In many cases, it can result in scapegoating certain groups of people for grievous wrongs none of them had a hand in committing. It can also lead to damaging intellectual conformity and groupthink. DEI hiring quotas, in particular, can lead to serious legal risk. All of this results in the complete opposite of DEI’s purported goals. Instead, it increases workplace disunity and harms true diversity.

Ultimately, the DEI policies at these classic American companies have proven to only burden corporations, frustrate employees and confuse customers. Companies should prioritize producing better quality products, lowering prices, and offering attractive wages and benefits for all employees, instead of pouring time and money into ineffective policies that do not represent the American values of their customer base. So long, discrimination disguised as diversity.

Devon Westhill is the president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity.

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Several wealthy and successful industrialized countries (Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore) and several U.S. states (including Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming) impose no capital gains taxes. Of course, Alberta competes with these U.S. states for investment.

Earlier this year, the Trudeau government increased the inclusion rate on capital gains over $250,000 for individuals and on all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts. This tax hike will almost surely have a negative impact on investment and entrepreneurship, but the Smith government can lessen the blow in Alberta.

In simple terms, capital is money invested in an asset—e.g. a business, factory, intellectual property, stock or bond—to create economic benefit. A capital gain occurs when that investment is sold for more than its original purchase price.

Prior to the tax hike, half the value of a capital gain (50 per cent) was taxed by the government. Trudeau increased this “inclusion rate” to 66 per cent—and that has real economic consequences.

Why? Because capital gains taxes impose comparatively large costs on the economy by reducing the reward from productive activities such as savings, investment, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, which are essential for strong economic growth. Capital taxes are among the most economically damaging forms of taxation for this very reason—they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest.

Take an entrepreneur, for example, who’s deciding whether or not to risk their own capital to provide (and profit from) a new technology, product or service. The higher the capital gains tax, the lower the potential reward from this investment, which means they will be less inclined to make the investment or perhaps undertake the investment elsewhere (another country, for example) in a more tax-friendly environment. Less investment means less innovation, job creation, wage growth and ultimately lower living standards. In other words, Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike will not only hurt Canadians with capital gains but other Canadians who benefit from the knockoff effects of investment.

Largely due to this problem, several wealthy and successful industrialized countries (Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore) and several U.S. states (including Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming) impose no capital gains taxes. Of course, Alberta competes with these U.S. states for investment.

Previous federal governments also understood the disincentive that comes with capital gains taxes. In 2000, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien meaningfully reduced the tax rate applied to capital gains stating that we must “introduce tax measures that encourage entrepreneurship and risk taking.”

Today, fortunately, the Smith government can take action.

When governments tax your capital gain, they include a share of the gain in your personal income and it is taxed at your personal income tax rate. The Alberta government could simply add a step in the tax return process for Albertans to remove capital gains from the provincial income tax calculation. As a result, the capital gains tax would only apply to the federal portion of your income taxes.

The Alberta government doesn’t have to sit back and accept Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike. Eliminating capital gains taxes from the provincial income tax in Alberta would send a powerful message to potential entrepreneurs, investors and businessowners that the province is open for business—and that benefits all Albertans.

Author:

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute