Tax Foundation Rips Santorum Tax Plan (Grade: D+)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 1/6/2012 | Kristina Peterson

[JediJones]

An antitax advocacy group zinged Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s tax plan, giving him a grade of “D+” grade and the dubious honor of proposing what “may be the worst idea of any of the Republican candidates.”

”The good news is Santorum has gotten more specific about his tax plan since last month when we gave him a D+,” economist William McBride wrote on Thursday. “The bad news is… he’s gotten more specific.”

Mr. McBride said the biggest problem with Mr. Santorum’s proposal is the sharply different corporate tax rates he would establish. Mr. Santorum would halve the corporate tax rate to 17.5% from its current top rate of 35%. Manufacturers, however, would not have to pay any corporate taxes.

Mr. McBride said the idea is “grossly unfair,” and unlikely to gain traction in Washington. If it did, he said, many businesses would “suddenly claim to be a manufacturer.”

The tax group also took aim at Santorum’s suggestion to triple the tax deduction families can take for each child. “This is obviously a big tax cut, and might spur growth, or it might just spur child making,” Mr. McBride wrote. The Tax Foundation echoed concerns expressed earlier this week by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that tripling the child tax deduction could push more low-income families off the tax rolls.

While the Santorum campaign has filled in some of the details in recent weeks, big ones remain missing, Mr. McBride wrote. The plan would collapse the current six rates to just two — 10% and 28% — but it doesn’t specify who would pay those rates, he said, adding: ”That’s kind of important.”

[Houghton M.]

That’s why you never hear from a Santorum Gingrich supporter about Saint Rick loveable bad boy Newt’s excellent, visionary platform. It always starts off with “Newt Rick is a SOB!”, or something along those lines.

There. Fixed it.

[Girlene]

Oh, my. "Barefoot and pregnant"?

I don’t think children necessarily benefit from being coddled 24/7 throughout their young lives either. The idea that a woman would stay home and do nothing for her entire life but raise children seems like a real waste of potential....

Wow is all I can say.

[org.whodat]

You are not gaining much ground, todays Washington Times, http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/17/questions-surface-gingrich-campaign-travel-payment/

[KansasGirl]

My thoughts exactly. I gave up my career to stay home and raise my kids. What a slap in the face to women like me.

[bushinohio]

And you think that Rick Santorum is insulting to women?

[freedomfiter2]

Cutting corporate taxes in half is a good thing. Other than pandering, there is no justification for eliminating the capital gains tax.

[freedomfiter2]

In Europe we’re already seeing women performing better in the kind of jobs that are available in modern western countries.

Besides, government can do a better job raising children.

[Girlene]

Good for you. Women (and the men that support them) deserve a lot of credit for investing in their children. Not everyone can do it, but those who can are doing a great thing. (IMO, of course)

[sphinx]

It’s funny that I heard him call this a “flat tax”, even though it’s 17 percent and 0 percent, two different tax rates.

I don't follow you here. "Flat tax" proposals come in a lot of flavors, and some are pretty loophole ridden. Some, in fact, are really not flat taxes at all, but rather somewhat bold tax simplification plans that try to claim the flat tax mantle for tactical reasons. That said, every "flat tax" proposal I have ever seen, including the self-advertised "pure" ones, has a zero bracket amount and then a flat tax on incomes above that level. How is this any different?

[unixfox]

Unless a tax plan includes abolishing the IRS and demolishing every damn building they occupy then I give them all a grade of "F"

A flat tax or the fair tax are the ONLY options IMHO.

See tagline.

[Son House]

I agree, Santorum has to be taught conservative economic solutions because he is only to the right of Democrats. Go Newt!

[Domandred]

For an “anti-tax” group they sure are complaining a lot about some wanting to CUT taxes. Nice progressive leftist use of the word “fair” thrown in there too.

[ecomcon]

You seem to have a liberal world view. You accept the societal premises of the left.

I have 4 kids and we homeschool them. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Free your mind from the communist idea that human beings are nothing more than economic units. Life is not work.

I think we all know how families handled their financial burdens decades ago...

Decades ago we had a mostly intact nuclear family with a mother at home and a father provider. In every way, this country was better. It was growing and prospering, in contrast to the European model we follow now, which is decline, collectivism, and political correctness.

[Hostage]

FAIRTAX YES!

Flat Tax NO! Because it leaves the 16th in place and it can then grow back into the cancer we have today.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq

[RockinRight]

The only part I have a major problem with is the manufacturer part, because it screams favoritism, and, how does one define “manufacturer”?

I would also like to see that the tripled child exemption is only useable if married filing jointly.

[GlockThe Vote]

Romney and saint Rick will get eaten alive by thugbama. For me I am down to rp and newt.

[RockinRight]

I’d like to see more analysis on the child tax credit as an economic benefit. My suspicion is that it would spur more low-income households to have children, which would then need to be supported by the welfare state in countless other ways for decades to come. It would be dubious to me whether the financial losses on that welfare would pay off with increased social security revenue later on.

Well, people would scream, but one way to keep it from encouraging the wrong people to have kids is to only allow the larger deduction if you are MFJ and both taxpayers are the legal parents (via birth or adoption) of the child in question, and otherwise, the standard current deduction applies.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Typical Santorum.

Steals other ideas and solutions, and views every solution around Mega-Huge Government, regulation and restriction.

Rob from Peter to Pay Paul, big government mentality. And some here claim that this rank stupidity will bring manufacturing back to the USA that has already left. (And loving it in their new homes.) But more importantly, this is tailored to help the big Unions, who Santorum is deeply involved with and goes out of his way to support.

But by more than doubling the tax burden on other forms of industrial ventures, they will also leave as fast as they can.

This is typical Big Government, Union Loving behavior, from a failed Senator who was voted out for good reason.

[KansasGirl]

Well, the nazi socialists agreed with JediJones’ notion that women should be in the workforce and leave the care of their children to the state and “professional caregivers.” All collectivists, socialists, and statists think that way. I disagree. I consider myself extremely blessed to be able to stay home and raise my own children.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2848587/posts

#17 Under Adolf Hitler, the state started taking over the job of child care.

The following is more eyewitness testimony from Kitty Werthmann....

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology.

Of course this is exactly what is happening in America today. Children are raised by day care centers and public schools, and most parents spend very little time with their own children.