[SeekAndFind]

;The Kennedy tax reform not only cut the tax rates; he gave an added incentive for investment in new equipment.  This resulted in an increase in investment and, as a result, increased productivity and a much improved economy.

What was the Investment Tax Credit?

The ITC was a credit given to investors (businesses) for purchases of tangible property.  The property had to be personal property (IRS §1245) as opposed to real property (IRS §1250).  Real property is real estate and land.  Personal property is equipment that is movable and not part of a fixture to real property.

The ITC was a credit from taxes.  That is, it was not a deduction from income, but a direct credit.  This deduction was also exclusive of depreciation allowances.  In other words, it did not affect the book or tax value of the property.  Depreciation was still calculated on the cost basis of the asset.

[BipolarBob]

The best solution would be to defund the EPA and start building factories and employing factory workers.

[Reverend Wright]

Anything to avoid re-industrializing the United States.

Instead of sending $200 bil to Ukraine as an “investment” in defeating the Russians, they should have taken $30 bil and built three integrated steel mills, and ended all steel imports.

But No ! That would be “socialism” and “too expensive”.

So instead they piss away 10x as much $$$ in Ukraine and have nothing to show at the end.

[Dr. Sivana]

Milton Friedman’s arguments against tariffs do not take into consideration the fact that some things must be made at home and not by a likely enemy in order to maintain sovereignty. Computer chips, some food staples, a minimum of energy, industry metals (if you have them to mine, and we mostly do), finished steel, etc.

It is not primarily an economics argument, though there could be economics components to it.

[HamiltonJay]

Sorry bunch of BS.

Tariffs are absolutely the right solution, especially when you have foreign governments subsidizing their manufacturing and dumping the products here.

Letting us consumers fund hostile regimes is idiotic.

If there was ever a lost opportunity in the post war era it was the embracement of free trade alliances rather than bilateral agreements where developing and repressive regimes could be forced to embrace egalitarianism and democratic principles in exchange for market access.

[Farcesensitive]

How about lower taxes, lower regulations, and taxation shifted to tariffs?

You will never beat slave labor economies run by communists who subsidize their industries to destroy yours without tariffs.

[Deplorable American1776]

What we need to do is tariffs on any goods made in hostile countries (China for instance), give tax breaks to any business who'll invest (build a factory) in the US (depressed areas would get a tax break that is more than if you build the factory in the south) and start ups would get more tax breaks than a big business.

Why are we giving $$$ to China? I try to buy American. I just got a new bicycle for my 8 year old. I bought a BCA (Kent brand) bike. It was built in the US with Chinese made parts. Good bike.

[Wuli]

So Chinese companies will buy some U.S. companies, do assembly here, and take the ITC.

I have a better idea. No Tariffs. Just no trade with China or any other dictatorship of any kind. And no person or entity from any dictatorship of any kind can buy or own anything in the U.S., not property or businesses. Third, no U.S. “non-profit” enterprise can recieve money, directly or indirectly for any person, organization, business or governmental unit from any dictatorship of any kind. Cut off the heads of the snakes.