Skip to comments.
Rick Santorum's Naive Blast To An Impoverished Past (Zero taxes for manufacturers is bad policy)
Real Clear Markets ^
| 01/10/2012
| John Tamny
Posted on 01/10/2012 6:27:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
21
posted on
01/10/2012 10:40:24 AM PST
by
TheOldLady
(FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
To: SeekAndFind
Good article. The other problem with Santorum's proposal is this: How do you determine what is manufacturing?
Think that's a simple question? Then answer this one:
Which of the following, if any, is a "manufacturing" business?
- An integrated auto manufacturer.
- An auto manufacturer that assembles cars from parts bought from China.
- An auto dealer who buys cars without headlights, buys the headlights separately, installs them on site, and sells the cars.
- An engineering consulting firm that designs cars.
- A fast food restaurant.
- A fast food restaurant's supplier.
- A caterer.
- A meatpacker.
- A corn farmer.
- A beef cattleman.
- A dairy farmer.
- A dog breeder.
- A guy who makes cabinets by hand.
- A toilet paper factory.
- A software company.
- A CD printing company.
- A software company that owns its own CD presses and sells its software on CD-ROMs.
- A movie studio.
- A coal mine.
- An oil driller.
- An oilfield services company.
- An oil refiner.
- A homebuilder.
- A prefabricated home manufacturer.
- A mobile home manufacturer.
Then if you can answer that, then answer this: How is this not arbitrarily picking winners and losers in the economy and, if it is, when did it become okay for conservatives to do that? Also, why are the businesses for which you said "Yes" better for America than the businesses for which you said "No"? Why should the latter businesses have to pick up the slack for the former?
I'd like to see Santorum answer these questions. I'd like it even more if he rethought this nonsense and started acting like a conservative on this issue, because I generally like the guy and would love to support him.
22
posted on
01/10/2012 12:38:38 PM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
To: DManA; SeekAndFind
To: The Pack Knight
RE: The other problem with Santorum’s proposal is this: How do you determine what is manufacturing?
Companies that provide some sort of services will not be classifying themselves as manufacturing companies.
MacDonalds and Burger King and even Hamburger joint will not call themselves burger manufacturers.
Starbuck “manufactures” coffee.
Heck even a software development company that makes “factory objects” will label itself a manufacturing company.
That’s what you get when you try to favor one segment of business over the other.
Better to simply CUT CORPORATE TAXES to one LOW, COMEPTITIVE LEVEL and get out of the way.
To: C. Edmund Wright
Ill guarantee you every single business would manufacture something so that they could qualify for the zero tax on manufacturing,If I am not mistaken, that was the point, manufacturing requires employees who produce products.
Furthermore companies that manufacture products pay no tax, only the consumer that buys their product pays the tax. This seems to be an impossible concept for many.
25
posted on
01/10/2012 2:55:43 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
To: The Pack Knight
I'd like to see Santorum answer these questions.I would like to see common sense applied to problems without the help of lawyers, but I likely won't get my wish. Too much money to be made by the lawyers.
I just won a big class action suit against NetFlix, my share will be a gift certificate which I can obtain by only filling out the twelve page form. The lawyers probably worked ProBono.</sarcasm>
26
posted on
01/10/2012 3:10:08 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
To: SeekAndFind
Better to simply CUT CORPORATE TAXES to one LOW, COMEPTITIVE LEVEL and get out of the way.Low should be Zero. Tax the owner's salary leave the corporation alone let them to reinvest or else pay out to salaries where it will be taxed.
27
posted on
01/10/2012 3:14:40 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
To: itsahoot
Well, if you know of a common sense way to resolve this issue without (a) creating a rule that would be easily gamed, (b) coming up with a completely arbitrary rule that has nothing to do with what’s good for the country, or (c) leaving it up to the unpredictable whim of IRS bureaucrats or tax judges, I’d be interested to hear it.
The truth is that there is no way to implement Santorum’s proposal that wouldn’t provide a lot of work for lawyers. Even though I am a lawyer, as a citizen, I don’t want that kind of system.
28
posted on
01/10/2012 8:01:17 PM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
To: The Pack Knight
Since you are a lawyer, I doubt you could accept common sense answers. The easiest idea to dispel with is the notion that anyone pays a tax other than the person who produces the wealth. If you can grasp that concept then you may be open to the idea that tax lawyers are not indispensable.
29
posted on
01/10/2012 9:16:11 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
To: itsahoot
Your hard on for lawyers aside, I think I see what you are saying and agree with it. That’s why I think the corporate income tax ought to be eliminated - corporations should be “pass through” just like partnerships and most LLCs. There is no reason for the double taxation of income just because it is earned in the corporate form, other than rank populism.
30
posted on
01/11/2012 6:06:14 AM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
To: SeekAndFind
Thats what you get when you try to favor one segment of business over the other.
Better to simply CUT CORPORATE TAXES to one LOW, COMEPTITIVE LEVEL and get out of the way.
Hear hear. Also, while I would certainly like to see some more manufacturing attracted back to our shores, that doesn't mean ANY manufacturing is preferable to any non-manufacturing business.
After all, what's better for our economic viability and national security, a software company or a t-shirt factory? I used to live in North Carolina which has for decades been losing the latter but gaining the former. Some might disagree, but I think it has been for the best in that state. Certainly, I feel safer having our military have to buy Chinese-made undershirts than having them buy Chinese-made targeting software.
31
posted on
01/11/2012 11:31:51 AM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
To: SeekAndFind
Thats what you get when you try to favor one segment of business over the other.
Better to simply CUT CORPORATE TAXES to one LOW, COMEPTITIVE LEVEL and get out of the way.
Hear hear. Also, while I would certainly like to see some more manufacturing attracted back to our shores, that doesn't mean ANY manufacturing is preferable to any non-manufacturing business.
After all, what's better for our economic viability and national security, a software company or a t-shirt factory? I used to live in North Carolina which has for decades been losing the latter but gaining the former. Some might disagree, but I think it has been for the best in that state. Certainly, I feel safer having our military have to buy Chinese-made undershirts than having them buy Chinese-made targeting software.
32
posted on
01/11/2012 11:32:09 AM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
To: The Pack Knight
Your hard on for lawyers aside,On a thread elsewhere is mention of Binder & Binder the thieves that have colluded with the government to extract 88 million dollars for themselves from the tax payer, since they seem to be the only people that can get disability retirement from SS approved.
33
posted on
01/12/2012 11:45:59 AM PST
by
itsahoot
(You are no longer a person, you are a Unit when you need health care.)
To: itsahoot
You won’t get any arguments from me about fraud mills like Binder & Binder. They managed to get through a rule years ago where they could use “qualified” non-attorney representatives to represent people in disability procedings before the administrative law judge. In fact, the vast majority of Binder & Binder’s work is done by large numbers of low-paid non-attorneys “supervised” by a couple lawyers. Needless to say, it’s a mess.
34
posted on
01/12/2012 4:18:34 PM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson