at this point will go to update
Free Republic's computer system
We have the need for SPEED before the election!
Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/18/2012 11:26:25 PM PST by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Like it or not, all that government chooses to involve itself in creates social engineering either intentionally or unintentionally. The fact that the government taxes productivity is in itself social engineering. If they did away with income taxes, that act alone would be a form of social engineering. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, or so says Newton.
In order to propagate society and further its’ ends, a future and growing generation is an absolute imperative. We need look no farther than the stagnant economies and dying societies of Japan and much of Western Europe to see the economic chaos associated with a declining population.
Don't even get started on the Statist claims of greenhouse gas emissions or Plank's Statistical references of Black Body Radiation.
The Malthusian claims should at this point be completely debunked, yet the Statist social architects, abortion loving ‘family planners’ and the death cult of Leftist ideology fails to notice that the only cause of hunger ANYWHERE on Earth is a the retrograde acts of government. Particularly in the unfortunate Continents of Africa and Asia.
Where the classic liberal democracies take hold, IE: Western style culture and government, there is no hunger. You should judge society by the girth of its’ poorest classes. Michelle Obama speaks incessantly to this with a forked tongue. That is when she is not vacationing.
As far as the tripling of the personal deduction for everyone. I am all for that, but the personal deduction is already $8,700 for the head of Household and $11,900 for a married couple. While the deduction for the most expensive person, a child, is only $3,700. The deductions for ALL dependents should be increased to at least the standard deduction of the primary tax payer.
This would free up much needed income to allow for the ability of one parent to stay home and raise the children. Particularly young children. It would also spur the natural economic spending associated with growing families such as, housing, auto purchases, clothing purchases and all the consumer activity that is key to an expanding economy.
By the way:
Welcome to Free Republic!
According to this story (and others that are easily located) http://cnsnews.com/news/article/balanced-budget-amendment-without-spending-cap-will-lose-gop-senate-votes-says-sen-lee all the GOP Senators now are supporting Mike Lee's Amendment proposal. That proposal has a cap of 18%.
Here is the text:
"Mike Lee Balanced Budget Amendment Text":
I had a bit of trouble getting the Thomas.Loc.Gov link included here. If the link fails, doing a search ought to bring it up smartly for you. I am interested in your comments and critiques of the text of the proposed amendment, not the difficulties or probabilities of getting it passed.
People who want big government (socialism) - mostly people in government - are in the business of fooling, deceiving, and lying to people to at least buy time to get what they want. It may begin with an ideal they believe in and think they have to lie for to achieve. At some point, however, the deception takes on a sinister motive as power and the potential for power grows.
As I said, a balanced budget amendment is capable of fooling enough people into thinking, "Hey, the government's really fixing the problem" until as I said, we're all working for the government.
I trust 'em as far as I can throw them. You don't hear Santorum (or anyone else except Paul (he's out) and Palin (she SHOULD be in)) emphasize the spending problem in the balbud context or elsewhere. This balbud effort as I've said, gets people to focus on the byproduct of "the balanced budget problem" (instead of the core issue of horrific spending and big government problem) kind of like the demagoguery of beating the "the jobs problem" drum which is a byproduct of the core issue: deadly restrictions on the free market.
FairTax ping!
FairTax ping!
I don’t want anything exempt. Deductions and credits and exemptions are all in the same camp — letting the government influence your decisions. That said, I understand people aren’t willing to give them all up immediately. That is why I favor a minimum tax so that no matter how many deductions you’ve got or how little money you make, your tax bite will still be at least 10% of your AGI. I’d add that one condition to Newt’s 15% flat tax that still allows the most popular deductions — that those deductions can’t reduce your tax below 10% of AGI.
“This is the dumbest statement I’ve seen on the Internet this year, and that’s saying something. “
That was my reaction exactly. She completely ignores the fact that her childless neighbors are paying the $150K in taxes to put each of her kids through school, provide parks, paying higher medical insurance to subsidize the abnormally cheap family health insurance rates, etc. She honestly believes she’s doing everybody else a favor by providing children to society, rather than because she personally wanted children for their own sake, and therefor all the childless people should have extra money extracted from them by government force to pay for her kids upbringing.
Well said. As a small business owner, I like Newt’s 100% deduction for the purchase of equipment, machinery, or other business improvements, instead of depreciation over several years.
That one tax incentive can translate into thousands of jobs as those small businesses convert that capital to hiring. This one deduction would also give a boost to the manufacturers who make the equipment, etc.
Like Newt’s Energy Plan, his Solutions are broad reaching and really offer hope to people looking for decent paying jobs.
Newt has said he wants Cain on the team for tax reform. Lots of tallent and sound business knowledge there.
I’m a fan of your posts. Keep up the good work!
The way I read the text of the proposed amendment, it does cap spending. I am interested in what your thoughts are as to how the cap would be circumvented, if such loophole exists.
For sure, I would favor an even lower amount for the cap...
I don't believe for one minute that there would be enough votes to pass a bona fide bill like that. My guess is there would only be a "spending cap" and it would be couched in the kind of language that could be interpreted any number of ways. If you had Democrats for POTUS and Congress (or RINO POTUS and Congress), they'd use the ambiguous language to raise taxes and spending.
No, the only clear-cut straightforward way to deal with our problem is to SIMPLIFY taxes to a flat 15% or so and MANDATE CUTTING SPENDING.
Manufacturing in this country does not need special tax treatment, they need what the economy needs - a level playing field, zero loop-holes, carve-outs and exemptions and the same flat tax for everyone, without exceptions.
Manufacturing in this country needs similar reforms with respect to foreign competition in our own domestic economic space. They need the protectionist measures that other countries take toward U.S. manufacturers seeling to operate in or import to their domestic space, to be applied to their manufacturers - tit for tat - that seek to operate in or import to our domestic space. This is not a “protectionist” measure. It says to others that if you want to be protectionist, your own rules, official and unofficial, will appply to your own companies operating/importing to here.
If you want to join my official fan club, just PM me and I’ll reply back with instructions on where/how to send the specified organs required as your initiation fees. We also offer several affordable monthly membership packages that we can discuss. There is 1 star membership up to a VIP 5 star membership reserved only for the coolest cats.
**The tax group also took aim at Santorum’s suggestion to triple the tax deduction families can take for each child.**
“This is a particularly egregious socialist subsidy. If you have kids, pay for them yourself.”
___________________ Among the Tax-takers (getting tattoos on their backsides)
American Thinker ^ | Earl Wright
....I can’t talk specifics about my time at the IRS, but here are some generalities. Those claiming EITC also qualify for other so-called refundable credits (how can something be refundable when nothing is paid in the first place?). The typical 1040 would show an income of between $12,000 to $18,000 for the year. It was usually accompanied by one W-2 with the income earned almost always by a female. With other refundable credits listed, a “refund” would be claimed of between $6,000 and $9,000.
And these people believe that is their money; they have a right to it. I fielded a telephone query from a woman who didn’t even say hello, but blurted, “I haven’t got my taxes.” For an instant I thought she meant that she didn’t have enough money to pay her taxes, but I quickly realized she was talking about her “refund.” We newbies learned that those who pay taxes have a general fear of calling the IRS and tend to be nice on the telephone, while those who don’t pay any taxes believe they are entitled and are not always pleasant to deal with. We also learned these aren’t the brightest people on the planet with many signing their refund over to a tax-preparer and then claiming they didn’t know they had done that. (The “instant refund” scam perpetrated by many storefront tax-preparers is a whole other story.)
...A golfing buddy said his girlfriend’s daughter claims EITC among other things and received a U.S. government check for $6,000. She used the money to take her toddler daughter and the child’s ne’er-do-well father to the Monterey Bay Aquarium — a couple hundred bucks — and spent the remainder for a giant tattoo on her back. I’m so glad I could help....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2753527/posts?page=1 PS: EITC Campaign Strategy 2011
Letter from Department of Social Services:
The Goal of the EITC Campaign is to:
Cut the number of Californians who miss out on the EITC in half by 2013 by ensuring that 400,000 more Californians apply for the EITC than in 2009.
EITC 2011 Campaign Strategy - cont’d
http://www.cafoodbanks.org/EITC.html
Policies:
Streamline the legal immigration system to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic delays and burdens.
The key to a safer America lies in an approach to border security that includes the following enforcement measures:
Expand the border fence fully where needed and enhance physical border security;
More law enforcement resources and border agents;
The increased use of and access to cutting-edge technology; and
Enforcing immigration and labor laws including through employer verification including an E-Verify system that is simple, reliable, and protects businesses.
_________________
NumbersUSA: But in his answers to all the immigration questions this past year, we cannot find any record of Santorum showing support for E-Verify.
Santorum’s Senate record shows lack of support for E-Verify. And he has failed in all debate opportunities to show a changed position. - NumbersUSA
“On December 31, shortly after the November election, tax rates will rise across the board in what congressional aides call ‘Taxmageddon,’ notes The Washington Post. Not only will the Bush tax cuts come to an end, but new taxes will kick in to pay for Obamacare’s rising costs.”
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/02/19/taxmageddon-comes-just-after-the-election/
Thanks for the ping. Interesting thread (yes, I read every post). Thanks to all posters.
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.