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 ...
BTW, why does every response from you contain snark?
I feed you snark because that is what I see you dish, not just in posts to me but to virtually everyone with whom you disagree. You quite apparently didn't read my post for what it said but for how you see the world. 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.
Children of tax-PAYERS are more likely to be future tax-PAYERS, producers, not a demand for entitlements. For example, my kids were educated at home. They never used a dime of taxpayer money until they went to college, where they earn their way as tutors (and pay taxes). My wife and I are tax PAYERS, and would have had more kids if we could have afforded it. Instead, we have paid hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for parasites that breed, and believe me, given that my wife has been caring for newborn babies for thirty years, we have seen more than our share of drugged-out welfare moms pumping out babies. Hell, in California, MediCal is even paying for infertility treatment!!!
This proposal of Santorum's is about which kind of children we want: children of payers v. children of users. Will you or nil you, there will come a time when you depend upon the next generation for your survival, whether you are paying for it or not. Without future tax payers there won't be a future nation upon which you depend for its continuity alone; there won't be an economy, a national defense, or the infrastructure that houses, clothes, treats, and feeds retirees; they will be numerically overwhelmed by users.
This isn't about us anyway, but about what kind of nation we leave behind. Santorum is right for wanting to make things easier on middle class income tax-PAYING parents.
As I have said all along I do not think Rick is quite ready for prime time yet. He would do well to be Newts VP for 8 years and then Rick would be ready to go for the next 8 years. That way we get 16 years of Conservatism at the Presidency. GO NEWT GO!
“Wow is all I can say.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. There are just some people that don’t have a clue.
JB
Thanks for the analysis, CWCT, and lol on the post afterword. This IS a place to discuss policy, and is far more helpful to this nomination process, IMO.
:-)
Bull.
My first posts to you both today and last week contained no snark. You were the one who initiated the snark simply because I disagreed with you. Last week I ignored it. This week I didn't.
Perhaps you think I'm trying to post a gotcha just because I disagree with you. Don't think that. Try to have a normal conversation when somebody disagrees with you.
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.
You can't help yourself can you. Your remark is both snide and false. I never said that a tax reduction was an entitlement expense.
and apparently see the entire question of increasing population as increasing demand for entitlements. It's not true.
The way social security and medicare is set up right, a majority of the people take out or are scheduled to take out more than they put in.
This proposal of Santorum's is about which kind of children we want: children of payers v. children of users. Will you or nil you, there will come a time when you depend upon the next generation for your survival, whether you are paying for it or not.
One should never have to depend upon a larger number of people in the next generation to pay for ones social security and medicare. If that is what you are saying, then I disagree with it.
Beyond that, across the board tax cuts work best. Government shouldn't be using the tax code to encourage or discourage the number of children people have or to encourage or discourage anything except the funding of legitimate constitutional functions.
Whatever you are doing and whoever you are working for, PLEASE keep doing it and working for them, kind sir.
Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination DAILY Tracking Poll
Rick Santorum 36% (35%) {34%} [32%] (31%) {30%} [30%] (27%) {24%} [22%] (20%) {17%} [16%]
Mitt Romney 28% (29%) {30%} [31%] (33%) {32%} [32%] (34%) {34%} [34%] (36%) {37%} [37%]
Newt Gingrich 13% (13%) {14%} [14%] (15%) {16%} [16%] (16%) {17%} [18%] (20%) {21%} [22%]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx?ref=interactive
And no, it doesn't discriminate against those who do not or can not have children since they are not paying for the next generation of workers who will pay their social security and medicare payments. These are pay as you go systems and the decrease in birht rate has put a massive burden on the system to the point where it has become unsustainable.
As much as I would push for a flat tax, all those proposed still allow for deductions based on number of people in the family. Why? Because the next generation is an inherent necessity.
Flex time, maternity leave, etc. only serve to reduce child bearing. Have you not examined the evidence? Or does your “heart” tell you that you have the answer?
He is advocating tripling the tax deduction, not any tax credit. This policy does nothing to encourage low income families to have more children. It is mainly those families paying a lot of tax who would receive the benefit.
It is key to understand the difference between a credit and a deduction.
It is unfair to call it statist to triple the tax deduction for children. Alternately, the following could be done... One could make a libertarian or a conservative case that a family earns income, which should be distributed for taxation purposes evenly among the people in the family. So a family of 4 making 100k should see each person have a 25k taxable income. Same income for a family of 1 would have a 100k of income. As long as there is any tax paying threshold or a progressive tax the larger family would pay less than the individual.
But I am opposed to progressive taxation.
JediJ: One of the major reasons for the financial crisis that is engulfing Europe now is that they have stopped having sufficient children to maintain their population. In some parts of the world, they are under 75% replacement rate. Europe is starting to pay the price for their aging population now, but that price is going to be even greater in the next decades. This is an astoundingly horrid situation. At least in the US, we are near “replacement” birth rates.
Part of the reason for Europe’s problem is the type of attitude you are showing in this post#8 - a demeaning attitude toward women who are engaging in the most important task that a person can undertake - bringing up children. Compared to that most important occupation, all other occupations are insignificant. Thus far, the US has maintained policies that encourage to some degree the fostering of children, but we really need to do more. I hope you will reconsider your attitude about children and the importance for women and men to bring children into the world and raise them well.
On a second issue, I would appreciate comments about who this “Tax Foundation” is - I don’t recognize them as an important player in the conservative world. Am I simply having a senior moment about this?
THE SANTORUM SOLUTION
1.Cut and simplify personal income taxes by cutting the number of tax rates to just two - 10% and 28% and return to Reagan era pro-growth tax rate;
2.Simplify the tax code and reduce middle income taxes by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT);
3.Simplify the tax code, encourage savings and investment, and reduces taxes by eliminating the Death Tax;
4.Lower the Capital Gains and Dividend tax rates to 12% to spur economic growth and investment;
5.Reduce taxes for families by tripling the personal deduction for each child;
6.Reduce and simplify taxes for families by eliminating marriage tax penalties throughout the federal tax code;
7.Retain deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, healthcare, retirement savings, and children;
8.Eliminate the cap on deductions for losses incurred in the sale of a principal residence;
9.Cut the corporate income tax rate in half to make our businesses competitive around the world, from 35% to 17.5%;
10.Eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturing activity to spur middle income job creation in the United States and benefit from the job multiplier effect in manufacturing;
11.Increase the Research & Development Tax Credit from 14% to 20% and make it permanent to spur on innovation in America;
12.Eliminate the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income invested for manufacturers equipment investment, 5.25% corporate tax rate on other repatriated income invested in the USA, and 100% expensing for new business equipment
Item by item which do you disagree with and why?
It is key to understand the difference between a credit and a deduction.”
_____________
Apparently you didn't understand how the scam I linked to works.
Let me do my best to illustrate it for you: A person who has extra child dependents (more than the allowable maximum number) SELLS those child deductions for those extra dependents (by providing the child's name and SS#) at a discounted rate to another person who doesn't have children. This enables them both to claim child dependents as well as qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit.
By proposing to triple the value of each deduction Santorum has enabled the person selling their “extra” dependent deductions to demand a higher price thus increasing their profits. This still allows the recipient of the “extra” deductions to make a decent profit off both the fraudulent deductions and the fraudulent EITC. The cost of all this is borne by the taxpayers.
I will assume you know what the EITC is and how it works; if not it's easy to “Google” it or check out the IRS website.
Take care,
-Geoff
Thanks for the explanation.
All I know is that a deduction is not a credit. Even if people say that they are the same. Just as homo unions are not marriages.
Not really. He has the voting record of an anti-defense male feminist.
NEA
Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.
Bankruptcy
Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Defense and Foreign Policy
Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.
Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.
Voted for the START II Treaty.
Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
Voted to ban anti-personnel landmines.
Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.
Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same pay raises as uniformed military.
Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyrannical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.
Voted to limit the President’s authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea.
Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions. If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.
Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.
Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program.
Nominations
Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture).
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge.
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN.
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge.
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit.
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge.
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge.
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge.
Labor
Voted against National Right to Work Act.
Voted against repeal of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages.
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor.
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding.
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding.
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization.
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here.
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representatives from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
Guns
Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device.
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.
Reform
Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional pay raise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapists, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.
Voted for a McCain amendment to require state and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.
Immigration
Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators.
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.
Taxes
Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.
Welfare
Voted against food stamp reform.
Voted against Medicaid reform.
Voted against TANF reform.
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion.
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.
Waste
Sponsored an amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million.
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA).
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion.
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million.
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL).
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry.
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation.
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%.
Voted against transferring $20 million from AmeriCorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.
Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies a new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
Health Care
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against allowing consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.
Education
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing.
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.
Energy
Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.
This thread contradicts your juvenile one-liner.
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.