I loved the flower shop analogy used by Paul G. Merski in his “CU’s Fundamental Injustice” letter in the April 11 issue. His point was well made. He just didn’t carry the analogy to its conclusion.
He forgot to mention that the tax-paying flower shop is 10 times the size of the tax-exempt shop. The taxed shop can sell its flowers anywhere it wants without regard to any geographic or customer limitations. Should its far flung sales create the need for further expansion, its owner can go out and borrow additional funds to increase the size of his store and his warehouses (needed for his online sales).
The tax-exempt shop can sell only to the local neighborhood (who, by the way, include the owners of the taxed flower shop), and can only increase its sales and size of the business if its income allows.
Finally, if paying taxes is such a burden, the owner of the tax-paying flower shop has the right at any time to give away equity in the shop to customers, change charter, and never pay taxes again. However, I doubt that he’ll do it.
I am not aware of any bank that has gone out of business because there was a credit union across the street. Until the bankers can prove that credit unions are actually driving them out of business, the unfair competition complaint doesn’t hold water.
Hayward Community Credit Union