An argument persists regarding just how evil a tax break for the rich might be. Those who believe in this argument are not examining the issue intelligently. They allow their overwhelming empathy for the middle class and poor to define the reasonableness of such a move.

Luring U.S. corporations back to America versus outsourcing manufacturing or businesses relocating to foreign vistas provides a reasonable inducement for returning jobs to American workers and shutting off flow of American dollars to other countries’ economies. That money belongs here first. Our people have a reasonable expectation as well: to be able to provide for their families or reap the reward for hard work and live comfortably. This is the American Dream.

No business owner, no matter how rich, should be presumed to have contempt for the poor. After all, it’s the business owner who provides a pathway for success to the poor. No legal resident in this country should ever feel his or her American Dream is less important or less attainable because he or she might one day be vilified by our society if successful. (God forbid!) At what point will the poor man or woman pass the point when they become rich and are similarly deplored by the political left? Just wondering!

The so-called “Day Without a Mexican” spectacle purported to show how losing Hispanic members of the workforce would impact us all. I get it. The Hispanic population (like any other segment of our society) is essential to the success of our economic framework, whether that person is a waiter at a restaurant or general manager of an established department store. Hispanics are doctors, lawyers and business owners just like Asian people, black citizens or white folks. I understand that. I also understand that the top 10 percent of Americans, whatever their ethnicity, pay two-thirds of the federal income tax. The bottom 50 percent pay just 3 percent of the income tax.

Allow me to channel Rod Serling in “The Twilight Zone.” Consider, if you will, a day without the wealthy business owner! What exactly would happen if business owners all decided to play hooky from work for a day? Let’s examine the scenario.

Suppose every wealthy business owner decided at the same time to close his or her door for a day. No employee would be able to work. No consumer would be able to purchase goods or services. No contractor would be able to purchase supplies. Get the picture?

It doesn’t stop there. Workers do not get paid for that day. Deliveries cannot be made, which deprives suppliers from revenue for their needs. Groceries are not available and local restaurants are not patronized. Not only do the workers at your favorite eatery go without wages but no tips. And imagine a police precinct not getting donuts for the day. How many cops would suddenly be in a foul mood? (For my friend in the McLennan County Sheriff’s Office, relax — this is just playing out a scenario!)

Imagine a plumbing emergency at the house (but not in too much detail) or your cable service interrupted for a day. What if the privately held electric corporation shut its door for the day and no electricity was available? What about no telecommunications — no cell phones or social media. Perish the thought!

All those workers collectively would lose billions of dollars in pay. The loss in tax revenue would similarly amount to billions — and maybe even trillions in private-sector revenue loss. For those who need contextual assistance, billions are denoted with the prefix “giga-,” trillions are “tera-” in computer network terms. That’s a lot of moola!

So exactly what is the viable argument for creating an atmosphere where success in the business world is a penalty-worthy condition? Wealthy business owners do have a legitimate right to shut their doors permanently, take their money and run with it, leaving workers unemployed, their lives upended with no real relief in sight.

Consider also that the wealthy, former business owner could cash out all his or her assets and keep the money in a vault on his or her property. No investments, no interest, all money stored for his or her leisure. There is no federal tax for which this individual would be liable. If this money is not being used for anything but the necessities in life, then tax revenue from this individual is massively curtailed.

Now consider that every business owner follows suit. What would be the consequences of such an economy without any revenue from the wealthy? Government benefits would be significantly distressed, no pay for government workers. And no pay for government office holders!

Consider, if you will...!

Pete Commander is a 14-year veteran of the Navy and holds a master’s degree in international relations from St. Mary’s University in San Antonio. He is a retired medical practitioner. He describes himself as “good at figuring stuff out.”