Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tax Foundation Rips Santorum Tax Plan (Grade: D+)
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 1/6/2012 | Kristina Peterson

Posted on 02/18/2012 11:26:25 PM PST by JediJones

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last
To: Carry_Okie; FreeReign

“Children of tax-PAYERS are more likely to be future tax-PAYERS, producers, not a demand for entitlements.”

You seem to have a logical contradiction here. By tripling tax deductions for children or, heaven forbid, tripling the child tax credits, Santorum would turn tax-PAYERS into tax-FREELOADERS.

Tripling the exemption would mean a family with 4 children would pay no income tax on the first $66,000 of income not even counting any of their other deductions. A family like Santorum’s own, with 7 kids, would have to earn over $100,000 before they owed a dime in federal income tax.

Children raised by parents who never owed taxes are unlikely to support smaller government when they expect to duck out of paying for big government by shifting their tax burden just like their parents did.


101 posted on 02/19/2012 8:00:06 PM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Wow, you really dislike Santorum more than Romney? No way, I hope.

New Tweets tonight..

@fivethirtyeight: Our forecast model now has Santorum up ~5 in Michigan. That works out to a 72% chance of winning.

@ppppolls: Our AZ numbers (out tomorrow) and WA ones (out Tuesday) are good for Santorum

Romney is doooooooooomed!!


102 posted on 02/19/2012 8:42:41 PM PST by CainConservative (Santorum/Huck 2012 w/ Newt, Cain, Palin, Bach, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Petraeus in the Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; JediJones

Can anyone play ?

1) We don’t need to penalize success by having a 28% tax rate when a single 15% rate for everyone generates the same tax revenue.

2) We don’t need to eliminate the AMT, we need to make it apply to everyone. While some people must pay 15% because deductions don’t reduce their income significantly, nobody’s deductions should reduce their income such that they pay less than 10% of AGI. Hence we need an AMT that applies to EVERYBODY, not just upper middle income and rich people.

3) Eliminating the death tax means people can leave money growing in investments, deferring taxes the whole time, and then passing it along to their children where it will never be taxed. I don’t see why those investment gains should not be “realized” at time of death, subtracting the costs of the investment to arrive at net gain, and taxing the estate’s income as capital gains before it is passed on to the heirs.

4) If the single rate for individual income taxes is 15%, I don’t see the point of a special 12% rate for capital gains and dividends. Let all income be treated equally.

5) Very bad idea. The exemption is currently $3,650 per dependent. Tripling it to $11,000 per dependent means a family with 4 kids would make the first $66K of income untaxable. The taxes they do not pay must be extracted from other people. Families should not expect to be able to push their tax burden onto the shoulders of their neighbors who chose not to have children.

6) A flat 15% tax already eliminates any marriage penalty.

7) Every favorable tax treatment for people who made these choices requires the government forcibly extract more taxes from people who did not make those choices. People should not be making these choices at the expense of their neighbors who earned the same income but spent it differently.

8) Principal residence, secondary residence, etc. should all be treated as investments and capital loss should be without limit just as any gain would be taxable without limit.

9) It doesn’t matter what you cut the corporate tax rate to, it won’t eliminate the overhead of compliance or the lobbying in DC. The only way to eliminate the corruption and wasted productivity is to eliminate the corporate income tax entirely. Taxing corporate income and then taxing individuals on their dividends and capital gains amounts to double taxation. Eliminate taxation at the corporate level and tax it as income to the individual shareholders.

10) Don’t play favorites. Eliminate the corporate income tax for all industries, not just manufacturing.

11) Tax credits are unnecessary when their is no corporate income tax.

12) No special treatment is necessary when there is no corporate income tax.


103 posted on 02/19/2012 8:46:17 PM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon

I have nothing against home-schooling, but it is an admission that our actual school system is failing. I don’t see people as “economic units” but I see our success as a society defined significantly by how successful our economy is. Seeing as home-schooling is an economically more inefficient way of getting the job done (just as churning your own butter would be vs. buying it in a store) it is far from an ideal solution.

I believe in school choice and dismantling the government monopoly on education. Just like welfare, a government school should be the option of last resort. If we all were free to use our school taxes to pay to go to any school we wanted to, then a greater variety of schools would be created. I would expect that many people home-schooling would be able to find a school that fit their values and standards better. Of course they could always home-school anyway if they chose to. I’m worried about the people who feel they need to do it because there’s no good alternative, not the people who want to do it.


104 posted on 02/19/2012 9:29:33 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
You seem to have a logical contradiction here.

No I have not. You have conflated two separate issues: deductions for children and bracketing of tax rates. They are separate. Just because the deduction takes a payer at current rates down to zero total, does not mean that the deduction is bad policy.

Children raised by parents who never owed taxes are unlikely to support smaller government when they expect to duck out of paying for big government by shifting their tax burden just like their parents did.

I agree that most everyone should pay some tax.

105 posted on 02/19/2012 9:39:22 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2; Girlene; bushinohio; ecomcon
Besides, government can do a better job raising children.

I don't want government to maintain a monopoly on the schools. I want people to have school choice and have the equal opportunity to send their kids to any school they want and one that represents their values.

And you think that Rick Santorum is insulting to women?

Never once did I say Rick Santorum is insulting to women. Don't put words in my mouth. It's silly to take anything I said as an insult, when I'm specifically saying women have far more ways to contribute to society and the economy than only by raising children. By your logic, I could say you're insulting to children, because you think they need parental supervision to properly develop as individuals and can't do it on their own.

I think too much mothering and parenting is one of the bad trends in our society, hence we now have kids who are supposed to be able to stay on their parents' health insurance to age 27 and are still living at home at that age. I think kids should be working as early as possible while they go to school and be kicked out of the nest and pay their own way as early as possible. For the amount of time I think a kid should be spending with his parents, both parents would have more than enough free time to have at least a part-time job. Certainly in my experience, most of what I learned I learned from the world outside the family home, not from my parents. If I listened to them, I'd be a Democrat. When you have Democrat parents but you go to a traditional Catholic school like myself, you can see how I was much better off with the values I was taught at school than the ones I was taught at home.

At any rate, that's my opinion, and there's no reason for you to be insulted by my opinion or for me to be insulted by yours.

106 posted on 02/19/2012 9:50:54 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FReepers



Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero

Donate $1 A Day!
Isn't FR Worth It?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITHOUT FREE REPUBLIC?


107 posted on 02/19/2012 9:58:02 PM PST by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

Not true, I believe in school choice and getting the government out of schools. Not to mention, I think our day care centers are generally run by private industry as they ought to be, not by state-run brainwashing centers. Every parent should have the options under the free market to find the education and institutions that best suit their values.

I have no problem with parents who have the means to do so performing these tasks themselves, but I do not agree with having my tax dollars subsidize them in doing so. That’s the collectivism, socialism and statism you’re talking about, the idea that my tax money should be taken and used to pay for someone else’s lifestyle choices.


108 posted on 02/19/2012 10:00:44 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I said NOTHING about bracketing of tax rates in my post to you.

My post was strictly about your suggestion that tax-PAYERS should have more children, but the article is clear about Santorum wanting to drastically increase the tax exemptions for children, thereby turning tax-PAYERS into tax-FREELOADERS.

It doesn’t matter if there are multiple tax brackets as Santorum wants or a flat single rate tax. What matters is the use of deductions to exclude huge portions of what would otherwise be taxable income. Santorum would increase the exemption to $11,000 per dependent which would quickly eliminate all tax liability for a majority of those tax-PAYER parents you talked about.


109 posted on 02/19/2012 10:01:14 PM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Perhaps then we should have an amendment to limit government spending to remain at or below a certain percentage of the GDP. Any revenue taken in that goes above that amount due to fluctuations in the economy should either be returned to the taxpayer or put in a rainy day fund for when revenues received do not meet the funding requirements.


110 posted on 02/19/2012 10:02:31 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dt57
Rick Santorum is not a fiscal conservative. He is a social conservative and a national security conservative. Few these days are true fiscal conservatives. Ron Paul is but I can not vote for him because of his foreign policy. I choose to support Newt because he is the closest we got to a fiscal conservative. Now having said that I will vote for Rick Santorum if he wins the nomination. I will not vote or support either Mitt Romney or Ron Paul. My first choice is Newt.

You nailed it, dt57. It's worth repeating. I agree completely. Anyone who truly understands what's ailing our country and our government would have to agree with your spot-on analysis of the candidates.

111 posted on 02/19/2012 10:06:55 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
"Barefoot and pregnant"?

Anyone who uses such a term is a mindless cliche dispenser unworthy of the time or effort a serious conversation requires.

I don't use politically correct language, I use accurate language. I care about the truth, not about whether I offend people or not. It's not right when liberals ignore a person's message and instead attack their choice of language as "offensive" and it's not right when conservatives do it either. The point of language is to convey meaning. The only language that is wrong is language that confuses. Bottom line, it's a simple, commonly known descriptive term to denote stay-at-home moms and not offensive at all unless you choose to read that into it yourself. Someone could make the argument that it's ideal for women to be "barefoot and pregnant" and that's perfectly legitimate of them to have that point-of-view, because the term itself is not insulting, it's colorfully descriptive and an exact synonym for "stay-at-home mom."

112 posted on 02/19/2012 10:13:29 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks
I knew it when he jeered and sneered at Cain’s 999 plan. He’s not interested in reforming anything ...just sticking to the status big gov quo.

Just like when he jeered and sneered at Newt's social security reform (which Cain agrees with too).

113 posted on 02/19/2012 10:15:55 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; Girlene

I found the page on their site where they explain their grades for all the candidates’ plans:

http://taxfoundation.org/publications/show/27849.html

Some of their complaints about Newt was him keeping the charitable deduction. I happen to disagree with them there strongly. Any method for diverting money to charities instead of the government is a good thing. They also complain that it’s unclear when Newt’s transitions take place such as from social security payroll tax to private accounts. That’s a pretty thin criticism. At least Newt is planning to do it, I’m not too worried at this point the exact date it’s going to happen as long as it does happen.


114 posted on 02/19/2012 10:23:04 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Only in the new Bizarro world were Newt is “anti-Reagan” and Romney is a “conservative” would a plan to cut one tax in half and eliminate another all together be a bad idea.

So then you'd be okay with cutting the income tax to 0 for black people and cutting the income tax in half for all other races? The different tax rates Santorum's proposing for different industries probably shouldn't even be legal under equal protection laws. What's moral, just or right about one business being discriminated against vs. another?

115 posted on 02/19/2012 10:27:25 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

What in the world are you talking about? This is not the Tax Policy Center, it’s the Tax Foundation. That was identified in the very TITLE of the article, and the article itself links to their web site. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just confused and not posting intentional lies in an effort to defend your candidate. This is their web site:

http://taxfoundation.org/about/


116 posted on 02/19/2012 10:36:07 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Indeed, you are pulling the classic leftist stunt here of equating a tax-reduction to an entitlement expense and apparently see the entire question of increasing population as increasing demand for entitlements. It's not true.

Funny, that's exactly the logic Santorum used to object to Newt's social security reform. He called Newt creating private social security accounts a "new entitlement" ("in his post-debate interview with Hannity, he called Gingrich's Social Security privatization plan a new entitlement program because it would entitle people to keep money they would otherwise pay to the government"). And that very social security reform would largely reduce the burden on "future generations" to pay for older people's social security. The current model is an unsustainable and inequitable Ponzi scheme. The solution to it is reform based on private accounts, not on trying to find new people to enter into the bottom of the pyramid scheme.

117 posted on 02/19/2012 10:54:07 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: impimp

I haven’t seen that data. Please link to it if you have it available. But keep in mind my goal is not to increase or decrease child-bearing. I was simply saying there should probably be reasonable ways to accomodate mothers with children that still allow society to benefit from their participation in the work force. The choice should not be solely between women having no children at all and working vs. quitting work entirely and staying at home to raise children. I’m looking for a middle ground.


118 posted on 02/19/2012 10:58:59 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Why wouldn’t it encourage low-income families to have more children? Maybe not the lowest income who don’t pay taxes, but there may be people at the low end of the tax-paying scale who can cut much or all of their tax burden with the additional child credit. It would then be debatable whether those families would qualify for other public assistance to support those children.


119 posted on 02/19/2012 11:02:24 PM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: dt57; onyx; b9; caww; KansasGirl; TitansAFC; true believer forever; SatinDoll; All
"Rick Santorum is not a fiscal conservative"

He was among the most big spenders Republicans in the Congress. As Senator, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania. In 2009, he declared, “I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Santorum: "People say that I voted for “The Bridge to Nowhere.” I did. I went with the federalist argument, which is, “Who am I in Pennsylvania to tell Alaska what their highway priorities should be?”

The NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum has a terrible record on taxes and spending in each of his two Senate terms. In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal.

Santorum is also a big fan of government regulations. He even boasted about sponsoring a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.” He also voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, the bill Newt promised to repeal in his first day as president.

Santorum had flip-flopped on government’s role in the housing market. In 2000, Santorum encouraged more home ownership, particularly for low-income families, with the help of government assistance, whether it was through the Federal Housing Administration, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, he changed his tune in in late 2005 (before the senatorial election), when he urged the reform of Fannie and Freddie.

Santorum - no fiscal conservative, pro-spending, pro-big government, pro-regulations, pro-more subsidies, more welfare, pro-gloated nanny-state ... How can ANYONE believe that he has any intention to reverse the flow of money pouring in Washington?

120 posted on 02/20/2012 12:23:51 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
- ) Eliminating the death tax means people can leave money growing in investments, deferring taxes the whole time, and then passing it along to their children where it will never be taxed. I don’t see why those investment gains should not be “realized” at time of death, subtracting the costs of the investment to arrive at net gain, and taxing the estate’s income as capital gains before it is passed on to the heirs.

Very liberal of you. You think you're entitled to the fruits of others labors to grow government even more. You sure you didn't make a wrong turn and accidentally end up on a conservative website?

121 posted on 02/20/2012 12:33:10 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: All

“Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects”

In 2006 at the Pittsburgh Zoo, Santorum boasted in front of local reporters about how he’d fetched $500,000 from federal taxpayers’ money to build one of the most luxurious polar-bear exhibits. “If the pot of money is there, I’m going to make sure we get a piece of that money,” he said.

Also in 2006, he earmarked $500,000 for the completion of the Pittsburgh bike trail.

Another pork secured by Santorum in 2003 was $3 million for building a parking garage, another $2 million for another parking garage in 2005 ...

In his career as senator, he required $3.5 billion in earmarks and sponsored spending bills of a total $53 billion.

Just imagine if 100 Senators did the same as Santorum, the government spending would have grown by $5.3 TRILLION.


122 posted on 02/20/2012 12:40:33 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

“Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.” Erick Erickson

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/


123 posted on 02/20/2012 1:21:10 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Perhaps then we should have an amendment to limit government spending to remain at or below a certain percentage of the GDP. Any revenue taken in that goes above that amount due to fluctuations in the economy should either be returned to the taxpayer or put in a rainy day fund for when revenues received do not meet the funding requirements.

Now you're talking. The Leftists, who would love to pass a "balanced budget amendment", would run the other way on a SPENDING LIMITATION AMENDMENT.

Can you imagine any Dem voting for that? He's probably get kicked out of the Party. Be hard to get the votes for that.

124 posted on 02/20/2012 3:29:04 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Great. Typical liberal debate tactic — when you can’t argue the point, you start insulting the other person.

My post said NOTHING about how much the government should spend. Taxes WILL be collected to cover the spending one way or another unless you think deficits can just go on forever, and if some people are allowed to freeload, those taxes must be extracted from others. So your championing untaxing the estate is also an attack on everyone else with regular investment income, forcing them to pay higher taxes to make up the difference.

How about explaining why one person must pay taxes on their investments just because they happened to sell them while alive while another person’s estate should not have to pay taxes on the same type of investments just because the previous owner died. I don’t think you understand what I wrote and how different it is from how inheritance tax is done today. Today, the full inheritance is taxed at 55%, while my post was to tax only the NET gain at the same 15% rate that other investments pay.

If any investment is going to be taxed, all investments should be taxed.

Not twice as they are today at the corporate level and then again as capital gains as liberals like, not deferred forever as eliminating the death tax would accomplish, but ONCE at the individual level when the gains are realized so all investors and investments are treated the same.

Imagine two seniors with 1000 shares of Apple stock. They both get sick. One of them sells his stock to prepare for hospital bills and realizes a $400K gain, must pay $60K in capital gains tax, and then dies leaving $340K to his heirs. The other just dies and his heirs get the full $400K tax free since you eliminated estate taxes and the senior never realized his capital gains so never paid the $60K tax that was deferred while he held the investment. Explain why you would treat these two investors differently.

Conservatives should NOT favor unequal treatment. I can see why you like Santorum. He’s not a fiscal conservative, and neither are you. You’re both social engineers, looking for ways to shift tax burdens around as though government should be making people’s decisions for them.


125 posted on 02/20/2012 4:09:28 AM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

“I knew it when he jeered and sneered at Cain’s 999 plan. He’s not interested in reforming anything ...just sticking to the status big gov quo.”

That moment is exactly when I dismissed Santorum as a worthy candidate.


126 posted on 02/20/2012 4:20:33 AM PST by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
an exact synonym for "stay-at-home mom."

That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever read on this forum.

You're the poster child for an ignore feature.

127 posted on 02/20/2012 5:48:18 AM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Some men just want to watch the world burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Having more children is only good for society if the people having them have the means and capability to support their children. IMHO...I see way too many people who have children who have no apparent means of supporting those children. No, I’m not saying you have to be rich. But you should be able to pay for your children’s food, clothing, home and education w/o government support.


128 posted on 02/20/2012 7:16:08 AM PST by conservaKate (Hoping Newt's still in by WA caucus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Seeing as homeschooling is an economically more inefficient way of getting the job done (just as churning your own butter would be vs. buying it in a store) it is far from an ideal solution

Jedi, the point is that the job is not getting done by educators. I home school in order that the job get done, and get done properly. I don't homeschool because I want to, but because it is the only way I can get the job done with the resources God has given me. It is my responsibility to educate my kids, not the government's. It is far less "efficient" in the long run, to produce an uneducated and/or reeducated young adult.

I believe in school choice and dismantling the government monopoly on education. Just like welfare, a government school should be the option of last resort.

Ditto

129 posted on 02/20/2012 7:19:38 AM PST by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
The child tax deduction does not need to be tripled — it needs to be abolished.

Only if personal exemptions are also abolished. Otherwise people with kids or those who earn less than the exemption are indirectly subsidizing those who enjoy the full exemption. Personally, I like a flat tax with some amount for each individual in the household exempt from taxes, so that basic needs can be met before taxes come out. Better yet a NRST exempting wholesale food, rent and mortgage interest on a primary residence. Better privacy with a NRST, and more incentives to save and invest.

130 posted on 02/20/2012 7:32:08 AM PST by JTHomes (Free markets now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Seeing as home-schooling is an economically more inefficient way of getting the job done (just as churning your own butter would be vs. buying it in a store) it is far from an ideal solution.

That's a fair point, but ignores the utility that can't be quantified in dollars and cents - that of parental bonding and the competitive diversity that it breeds. Plus, if I had to churn my own butter I'd be able to retire my shake weight :)

Standardization brings efficiency; true. But it also tends to stifle innovation, as most efficient producers and economies of scale drive out competition. School choice and breaking the NEA and teacher unions are essential, but to see that supplemented with millions of home schooled kids raised with strong family bonds would bring long term advantages that we can't even foresee.

131 posted on 02/20/2012 7:49:53 AM PST by JTHomes (Free markets now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

All Santorum has to do is drop the 0% manufacturing tax rate and he’s golden. Cutting the corporate tax rate in half across the board would make the economy soar, manufacturing along with it. In fact, manufacturing has recently gained traction as a sector.


132 posted on 02/20/2012 7:54:22 AM PST by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative

Maybe Romney could take the VP slot ;-)


133 posted on 02/20/2012 8:13:43 AM PST by o2bfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative; PSYCHO-FREEP

Thanks for showing that the Mitt/Rick plan is working according to mitt’s/the GOP E plan.

Yet, the deceived will never ‘get the obvious’ because they listen to the deceiver. They’ve spent 3+ years working on their plan, you guys will ‘get it’ when this country is no more and/or blaming someone else.


134 posted on 02/20/2012 8:27:36 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
I don’t think children necessarily benefit from being coddled 24/7 throughout their young lives either

We'll see what you say when said "child" of your kind ends up being a corrupt cop who rapes you and your family in jail.

135 posted on 02/20/2012 8:52:47 AM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

For your information, each and every Balanced Budget Amendment I have seen getting fairly strong support from GOPers and conservatives has included a cap on % of income that the Fed can take from us. There are at least two proposals in the Senate that I cloud live with. I doubt that Rick’s or Mr.Newt’s proposals would be substantially different.

I wholeheartedly support a BalBud Amendment of that type, and furthermore, believe that until and unless we get such a law in place, the US will get crushed by our own profligacy.


136 posted on 02/20/2012 10:01:44 AM PST by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Thank you for your post suggesting that the organization making this “report” and grading the GOP candidates may not be reliable.


137 posted on 02/20/2012 10:11:25 AM PST by AFPhys ((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

You are correct. The “Tax Policy Center” doesn’t look like any kind of a conservative group. I wouldn’t pay any attention to their “grade” of Rick’s tax plan. Let’s wait and see what a real conservative group like the Club for Growth has to say about Rick’s plan. I’m sure a real group of economic conservatives would give his plan at least a B grade.

The stuff posted on this thread is not mainstream conservative ideas. This thread is crawling with amateur and professional democrat operatives bashing away at Rick, as if anyone cares what they post on this thread. Don’t pay attention to the polls manufactured by liberal media/academics or trash posted on the internet by democrats claiming to be conservatives. Obama is in serious political trouble and we’re going to defeat him in November, with either Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum.


138 posted on 02/20/2012 10:44:21 AM PST by socialism_stinX (We need a decline of statism and a revival of individualism and personal responsibility in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys; Gaffer

Right on target. The group that produced this report does not appear to be any kind of conservative tax policy group.


139 posted on 02/20/2012 10:47:24 AM PST by socialism_stinX (We need a decline of statism and a revival of individualism and personal responsibility in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Can’t disagree w/your statement; however, it is extraneous to the point I was making.

Perhaps I did not do a good enough job of explaining it; at any rate it is rather a secondary issue and there are many more that should be considered as to whether Rick is a good candidate or not.


140 posted on 02/20/2012 11:15:36 AM PST by Ozymandias Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“This proposal of Santorum’s is about which kind of children we want: children of payers v. children of users.”

Santorum is right for wanting to make things easier on middle class income tax-PAYING parents.

“Which kind of Children.” That is discrimination.

Make ALL Children - Children of Taxpayers is how you make it easier on the middle class. Put the Freeloading parents to work through welfare reform.

How exactly do you think Santorum can give something to the taxpayers but not to the Freeloaders.


141 posted on 02/20/2012 11:15:36 AM PST by Bailee ( Pray for your salvation and a miracle, Prepare for the end of the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative
"Wow, you really dislike Santorum more than Romney? No way, I hope."

Certainly not. No vote for Romney under any circumstance. But I am inclined toward nonpolitical pursuits like self-sufficiency, low personal costs and making a few useful things to get through the repudiation and currency adjustments ahead. Observing the anorexia and deterioration of the beast (AKA, the B.) will be a hobby. This depression is a consequence of feminism, romanticism, other social pathologies and foreign attachments.


142 posted on 02/20/2012 12:16:59 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Yes, the article is mainly about the TF.

However, ....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 .... is what concerns me about this assessment, from either organization.

One organization (TF) may be concerned about the expense (although why someone at TF thinks a low-income family pays Federal Income tax is completely ludicrous -- what they should have said is that it will allow more middle income real-tax payers to keep what they earn) ), while the other (TPC) is just plain concerned that their constituents somehow won't be able to get the credit AND EITC (and whatever other credit they can get) if their AGIs are too low. If the TF were totally non-partisan, they should have opposed the proposal on its own demerits. The should have taken great pains to separate themselves with TPC....

143 posted on 02/20/2012 1:02:57 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
cap on % of income that the Fed can take from us

What's the %? What's Santorum explicitly endorsing (s/b demanding)? Funny how that never gets talked about even though it's a HUGE issue. If the big government folks, whose numbers seem to be increasing all the time, get their way, they'll just bang the "balanced-budget" drum so loud that enough people won't require a "cap." Without sufficient pressure for a "cap" there most certainly will not be one or else it will be accompanied by a million exceptions.

I wholeheartedly support a BalBud Amendment

Why would you support that instead of a SPENDING LIMIT AMENDMENT? All a balanced budget amendment would do is shift government's total irresponsibility onto the backs of the American people. Do you think these career politicians care about balancing a budget? All they care about is a guaranteed lifestyle, and they get that by SPENDING (and taxing when they can get away with it).

A balanced budget amendment doesn't address the core issue which is OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING. The budget problem is a byproduct of the core issue. We need a spending limit tied to some % of the GDP that reasonably would allow balance or surplus at a 15% or so SIMPLE flat tax rate. We had something along those lines not too long ago in the 90's before Bush and Obama pushed the Government Spending Economic Mayhem Button.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The reason you'd have hell to pay trying to get a spending limitation through is what I alluded to earlier. These guys have no intention of cutting spending or government. That's why you could probably get a BalBud Amendment, but not a LimitGov Amendment, passed. It would guarantee the Socialist state we're headed for where the budget is balanced alright and everybody works for the government.

As Cyrano de Bergerac was quoted, "No thank you! No, I thank you! And again I thank you!

144 posted on 02/20/2012 1:49:42 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

“I also don’t believe keeping half the population “barefoot and pregnant” can sustain our economy.”

Seriously? You sound like Robert Gibbs.


145 posted on 02/20/2012 3:31:21 PM PST by jollyjellybean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

There’s a difference between a distinction of race, and treating different classes of business differently.

Did you know that businesses already get hit with different levels of taxation? Hotels have all sorts of taxes, phone companies pay a different set of taxes, airlines have different taxes, oil companies, car companies; there are different deductions, different taxes, different treatments for all sorts of things.

In the end, I wouldn’t think doing different tax rates would be all that workable, and a single tax rate is preferable; but there is a fundamental difference between a company engaged in manufacturing, and a company engaged in retail marketing.

The real problem is when we pick winners and losers — giving one company in an industry a tax break for doing what government wants, giving them a competitive advantage. A steel company isn’t competing with Target. So the steel company having a different tax rate isn’t really going to distort the market.

Like I said, I can’t imagine that a 0% tax rate for manufacturing could be opposed by conservatives. In the end, I can’t imagine too many conservative saying “Well, if we can’t give Walmart a 0% rate, we’d rather Alcoa pay 12.5% as well”.


146 posted on 02/20/2012 4:52:31 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

[A balanced budget amendment doesn’t address the core issue which is OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING.]

Let me suggest the way to control spending is to yank the printing presses away from Bernanke. That is the real control lever.


147 posted on 02/20/2012 5:59:33 PM PST by DaxtonBrown (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: DaxtonBrown
the way to control spending is to yank the printing presses away from Bernanke. That is the real control lever.

Well, of course, the out-of-control FED is a HUGE problem that facilitates the rest of our out-of control federal gov't.

148 posted on 02/20/2012 6:15:33 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789; FreeReign; Bailee
I said NOTHING about bracketing of tax rates in my post to you.

Yet your analysis requires assumptions based upon their construction. You omitted those facts, making it a deeply flawed analysis when considering the pure impact of the magnitude of a child credit, which is the topic of the thread, because your assertion depends upon it entirely. I promise you: practically every parent in my area would still be paying plenty of taxes no matter what child deduction Mr. Santorum is contemplating.

My post was strictly about your suggestion that tax-PAYERS should have more children, but the article is clear about Santorum wanting to drastically increase the tax exemptions for children, thereby turning tax-PAYERS into tax-FREELOADERS.

Your example relied upon wildly inflated assumptions re the number of children that would result, particularly because tax-paying families are now having kids at below a replacement rate (which should concern you). In fact, the US birth rate is now lower than it has ever been. Few would choose to grow their family from one-to-two to seven kids upon the basis of a a tax deduction. That was just silly. Just the housing requirements alone would make that virtually impossible.

Santorum would increase the exemption to $11,000 per dependent which would quickly eliminate all tax liability for a majority of those tax-PAYER parents you talked about.

Sounds like a lot eh? Human Events reports an average American cost of raising a child at between $10,000 and $14,000 per year.

First, you have supplied no analysis that supports your assertion. Second, it would be true only if the rates and brackets remain the same, which is what I said, which is why I brought up rates and brackets believing just as you do that all able bodied adults should pay a tax. That Santorum does not propose an adjustment there is, in my judgment, the real fault of his plan, not the magnitude of the child deduction he is proposing (and we'll get to that). Right now, the tax code penalizes marriage and child-rearing, which, in my opinion, is a bad thing. I never said I was happy with his plan; I was merely talking about the principle of increasing the deduction for dependents, to which I wish to add another point in a bit.

It costs our family a lot more than $14,000 a year to support a child, particularly when marginal housing, and transportation expenses are included, never mind higher education. And remember, even if we got $11,000 as a deduction, it would not anywhere near cover the cost because of our marginal tax rate. Hence, those who are not raising the kids are currently FREELOADERS on the investment of the parents for the reasons I stated above. They're getting the returns of taxes paid by the children when they become adults without having born the costs, yet those without kids are getting the same return as the parents on the tax receipts and productivity of those kids once they become adults.

Now, as to that other bit, there is another class of dependents from which we as taxpayers would gain a great deal if the deduction for dependents was increased and this cuts directly to the demand side for government spending on this question, something that you are ignoring totally: making it more affordable for more families to educate their children at home and care for the aged in their homes.

Care for the aged and public education are where the real bulk of government spending at all levels really is. And that money goes almost entirely to Democrats.

An analog of this proposal has a good shot at reducing that demand, especially if it is structured as a credit instead, something that is entirely up to Congress. Yes, I think you would agree that society would benefit immeasurably both fiscally and socially if more people could home school and care for their dying parents.

70% of our medical dollar, about 10% of the entire economy is spent on end-of-life treatment. Were the aged cared for at home that number would be vastly reduced both in the cost for services and the quantity of services demanded. I don't think I have to tell you how much the country would benefit were more children home schooled but in addition, both the burden on terribly cash-strapped states and the size of the Democrat welfare state bureaucracy (for both education and juvenile delinquency) would take an enormous hit in short order. You would get back your $11,000 on the cost of public schooling alone.

So yes, I'm all for proposals that strengthen the family, yet I do agree that all able-bodied citizens should be conscious of their responsibilities to all. It is just as (and perhaps even more) important in rebuilding this country to get people to re-assume their familial responsibilities instead of foisting them on government, just as I believe that able-bodied seniors should perform public service such as tutoring and day-care in return for their welfare entitlement, er... "Social Security" (and please don't tell me they've paid for it because we both know that is not nearly true). Taking the transfer of a culture out of the hands of the single moms populating day-care centers would benefit both children, seniors, and society at large.

What is undesirable to me about using income tax deductions is that the case is so hugely different in a high tax State like New Jersey or California compared to, for example Mississippi. In the former case, Santorum's proposed deduction is insufficient, while in the latter it is indeed excessive. Better that it was a percentage than a fixed amount. In principle, I would have preferred an NRST, but the problems with the IRS having its nose in every transaction plus the scale of organized crime that would develop at this rate of revenue demand are untenable. You have no idea the degree to which computerized transactions enable social engineering when those considerations are inserted into a sales tax.

Finally, I don't think I need to add at this point that I regard Mr. Santorum's proposal as half-baked; it is. Yet remember: IT IS CONGRESS THAT WRITES THE TAX CODE. So, I appreciate that Santorum is emphasizing the disproportionate burden parents are bearing in our society, particularly those who pay upper middle class taxes. It means that, should he become elected, this issue will get the consideration it deserves. Our society depends upon it getting fixed.

149 posted on 02/20/2012 8:48:55 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: JediJones; All

I can’t believe what I’m seeing here.

First, I saw FReepers attack Sarah Palin for not being “conservative enough”. Then, it moved onto Herman Cain, then, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry. Newt is claimed to be “not conservative enough” and now Santorum is not “conservative enough”. Records are distorted, words are taken out of context, unfair comparisons are made.

As the circular firing squad continues, hopefully, some of you will plainly see, the one left standing is Mitt Romney.

The liberal media is doing a job on each of our candidates and sadly, I’m seeing some of those talking points repeated here.

Some of you are going to be so spent after months of attacking other candidates that when it comes to the actual election and defeating Obama, you’ll feel defeated already, which is, of course, the goal of the media.


150 posted on 02/21/2012 4:42:59 AM PST by swpa_mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson