From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

It is an ill-kept secret of American politics that most of the big labor unions in the country have long been client organizations of the Democratic Party. In presidential election years, endorsements from these unions for the party’s nominee have generally been foregone conclusions regardless of voting attitudes of rank-and-file union members.

Some are quicker to endorse than others. Vice President Kamala Harris barely had time to buy campaign letterhead before the United Auto Workers (UAW) weighed in on July 31 with its endorsement. The union’s bosses made the move despite the reality of the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandates placing many of that union’s jobs at risk as the companies they work for lose billions each year on quixotic efforts to force the public to enjoy paying premiums for cars they cannot rely upon when the going gets tough.

Even with that early move, the UAW fell 9 days behind the AFL-CIO, which jumped on the Harris bandwagon so quickly it probably made union members’ heads spin. Hey, speed matters when your business model relies on constantly asking for favors and protections from the federal government, for which the Democratic Party has traditionally been the most fertile ground to plow.

Given that reality, the Teamsters Union made big news this week by endorsing — well, no one — despite overwhelming support among the rank-and-file for the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump. It was the first time the Teamsters had failed to endorse the Democrat in a race since 1996, and only the second time in the union’s existence. Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien spoke at the Republican convention in July — and was snubbed by the Democrats at their convention in return. So, the refusal to endorse Harris was not a huge surprise. But O’Brien, fully aware of the vindictive nature of the Democrats towards their political enemies, apparently decided it would not be politically prudent to give a full-throated endorsement to the candidate his members so obviously prefer.

With the race shaping up to be another nail-biter, it remains to be seen whether any of these major unions’ decisions will prove to be wise. But for the UAW, the move to endorse Harris comes with increasing risk amid a softening market for the EVs being forced on U.S. consumers and the rising challenge by Chinese EV makers to the hegemony of domestic car companies in the U.S. market.

With legacy automakers like Ford and General Motors already bleeding billions of dollars in losses in their EV divisions despite heavy government subsidies in place, they can ill-afford an incursion into the U.S. market from Chinese carmakers who are able to make and sell quality EVs for far less than American car companies can. Right now, Europe is providing an object lesson about what happens in the EV space when governments allow that to happen.

EU countries were slow to move to protect their domestic car manufacturers when Chinese companies like BYD began to flood the European market with EVs. EV buyers in countries like Germany and France eagerly bought up the Chinese cars, saving thousands of Euros per unit in the process. When the EU belatedly moved to impose import tariffs on Chinese cars, the domestic car companies responded by raising prices for their own EVs in an effort to recover losses.

The result has been entirely predictable: EV sales in Germany collapsed by nearly 70% during the month of August. In France, they plunged by 33%. Clearly the appetite among EU car buyers for EVs is extremely price sensitive (no one could have possibly seen that coming), and consumers are more than happy to go back to buying gas-powered cars as cheaper alternatives.

Now, the climate alarmist central planners at the EU are proposing to respond to those uncooperative buyers by imposing massive fines on car makers for continuing to sell them the gas-powered cars they actually want to buy. Because, of course, that would be the response from power-mad apparatchiks.

Given that the Biden-Harris regime has basically followed the EU’s model on EV regulation, the EU’s struggles provide a preview of coming attractions for the U.S. auto market under a Harris presidency. It is hard to believe this is the future the UAW leadership really desires for its members.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss

With Major League Baseball’s regular season winding down and NHL training camps starting up, some big-name athletes including Maple Leafs captain John Tavares and former Toronto Blue Jays Josh Donaldson and Jose Bautista are involved in lawsuits with the Canada Revenue Agency. While the specifics of each case differ, the overall theme is the same—when signing their contracts in Toronto, these athletes adopted tax planning strategies to manage Canada’s burdensome tax structure.

One might ask: who cares about the tax plight of multi-millionaire pro athletes? But these high-profile cases underscore Canada’s comparative disadvantage in attracting top performers in all fields.

Similar to professional athletes, other high-skilled individuals including doctors, engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs are more likely than other workers to consider tax rates when choosing where to live and work. By maintaining high tax rates relative to similar jurisdictions, Canada has a harder time attracting and retaining these talented individuals.

And you’re almost guaranteed to face higher tax rates in Canada than in the United States. When it comes to top personal income tax rates, 10 of the top 15 highest-taxed jurisdictions in North America (among 61 provinces and U.S. states) are Canadian including the entire top eight.

In fact, a top performer in Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec faces a marginal tax rate at least 11 percentage points higher than the median U.S. state, and 16 percentage points higher than nine U.S. states (which have no state income tax). For a doctor, entrepreneur, professional athlete or other high-skilled worker, the tax differences between these jurisdictions can be substantial. Not surprisingly, the nine U.S. states with no state tax such as Texas, Florida and Tennessee have become favoured destinations for pro athletes and other top talent.

In addition to hurting Canada’s ability to attract high-skilled individuals, high personal income taxes reduce incentives for Canadians to work, save and invest. For example, higher taxes reduce the income workers take home from each hour worked, so many will choose to work fewer hours, resulting in reduced economic growth and prosperity. And higher taxes reduce savings and investment by consuming larger portions of a worker’s earnings.

High tax rates can also lead to less innovation and entrepreneurship, which limits economic growth and thereby affects all Canadians, not merely the wealthy. These innovators and job creators operate in a global marketplace for talent. Once achieving free agency, the typical hockey or baseball star generally will only have 30 to 32 destinations to choose from, all within North America. In contrast, Canada competes for other types of talent with countries from around the globe, making competitiveness even more important.

Professional athletes have a few things in common with other top performers. They are highly mobile, and all else equal, will move to jurisdictions that allow them to take home the highest possible after-tax earnings. While no Canadians are likely losing any sleep over John Tavares’ tax lawsuit, the broader concern over Canada’s competitiveness should be a top priority for policymakers.

Authors:

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute