In the middle of my campaign last year, someone circulated a rumor, that I “loath the unions and plan to get rid of them if elected Mayor, city of New York, 2013”. Fact is, no, I did not hate the union or any of the unions. The city needs them, they have always been the backbone of the city.

The only thing that worries me most is the effect of the union on the city. It is no longer progressive when required and not in line with current developments. Worse still, their role in the electoral process or should I say voting style is not democratic at all.

Voting to save their jobs, regardless of what the rest of the populace thinks is counter productive. It is one of the problems that is squeezing the life out of the city, businesses and the fast disappearing middle class.

If the system is perfect, then why should a free, highly qualified and extremely capable man ever think of voting as way to save his job?

Yes, plumbers, construction workers and nannies don’t get paid for taking time off to look after their own sick child, but if they are earning as much as they do per hour, then, do they really need government assistant when it comes to rent subsidy, food stamps, health insurance etc.

Yes, there are rights and there are privileges and it is time a Mayor address this issue head on. So, if elected Mayor, my plan was to set a standard for the benefit of all – specially the middle class and small business as I do not believe in raising taxes.

Why? I have seen the effect of taxing a set of people on cities like Los Angeles, and the ripple effect on the whole of California as a state. I have seen the effect of union hold over politicians on a city like Detroit.

And most of all, Auntie Maggie, I mean late “Margaret Thatcher” use to remind me about the role of tax and the fate of Empress Mathilde “the Queen we never had” as a perfect example of blind populism as opposed to rational and progressive pragmatism.

Empress Mathilde, the supposed to be Queen of England got shut out of taking seat as Queen by the one percent she planned to tax and guess what! She refused to change her views when she got to the gates of the City of London. At this point, the rest of England reasoned well. What they needed was a flexible monarch, who will subject her will to that of the state and not a stubborn one with her own personal will. No.

And so it was that, “for God and for Country, rather than personal” they made her watch as they cross the carpet to the other side and bid the warrior Queen farewell in her preferred lingo, French.

Now, the elected Mayor wanted to raise taxes. Not on all, but on the rich – a selected few to fund Pre-Kindergarten. Fine, go ahead. Just remember, these people are job creators and not any kind of service providers.

They will not shut the gate to the city on you as there are no obvious gates or key to the City of New York, but if you create a tax rate that is not favorable, then how do you stop them and their industries, if they start leaving New York City for neighboring states with better tax rates, cleaner family environments, better community Policing and more favorable housing conditions?

Personally, Mayor deBlasio, what is needed is to adjust a loophole that let a struggling family on 65k a year pay 18% tax while a hedge funder like Chelsea Clinton pays 15% on an income of $20m a year. Give Chelsea some credits and exemption on a certain things and she’ll definitely be willing to pay her fair share of taxes.

I guess we are beginning to see the meaning of “give property credits and family incentives to those who needs it the most,” as you use to say on your campaign, “rather than corporate bodies who continues to ship jobs abroad”.

Raising taxes will only force these top earning groups to stay out of the city. It will drive away a huge chunk of revenue for the city. This is not the best way to go because we are currently loosing out to Nagin’s New Orleans, in the area of real estate investment. We are loosing out to Texas and even the small city of Seattle on blue chip companies, pharmaceuticals, mining, technology and others that investment the fields of education and research – to name a few.

Won’t be surprised if Arizona tea is next. I guess the city would derive some trickle down income from licensing or branding if we are that lucky.