Behold a dark horse.

[joanmcq]

Somehow that just reeks of joke...in fact, I just checked. Just a joke circulating around the internet. Insert any politician's name and you describe how spin works...

[JoshinNC]

Are you kidding me?!

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered
that Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged
for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the
gallows. On the back of the picture is this
inscription: 'Remus Rodham; Horse thief,
sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887,
robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton
detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'

Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary's staff of
professional image adjusters sent back the following biographical
sketch: 'Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory.
His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable
equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad.
Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service
at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with
the
railroad.

In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the
renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away
during an important civic function held in his honor when the
platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'



And THAT is how it's done folks!-----------GET READY!!!!-------

I know she is the queen of doublespeak and spin, but that's just crazy. Who in their right mind would even think to come up with that explanation?

[BOB W]

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered
that Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged
for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the
gallows. On the back of the picture is this
inscription: 'Remus Rodham; Horse thief,
sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887,
robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton
detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'

Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary's staff of
professional image adjusters sent back the following biographical
sketch: 'Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory.
His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable
equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad.
Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service
at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with
the
railroad.

In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the
renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away
during an important civic function held in his honor when the
platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'



And THAT is how it's done folks!-----------GET READY!!!!-------

[Black Bart]

A non-event

No CG tax, no income tax, no AMT, no SS or Medicare tax, no estate tax, just a 23% national retail sales tax.

I'm not really worried about a national sales tax or a flat tax ever replacing the income tax (at least not permanently) because I view it as just a candidates' election ploy. Most people have heard for years how complicated and unfair our tax system is and now believe it, so that argument always plays well to political audiences.

I don't have any real statistics, but I've read that the top 10% of earners pay about 2/3 of all federal income tax. I have EIC people -- many of whom owe zero income tax -- complain about "these unfair taxes," following up that statement with "How much am I getting back?" I'd also guess the majority of people will never have to file an estate tax return, infrequently owe AMT, and have a large capital gain only once or twice in their lives. They have to pay income tax, but not usually a killer amount and many pay nothing at all except SS/Medicare.

Instead, hit them with 23% federal sales tax and add the state/local sales taxes (ours runs about 8%) which will of necessity be continued. How do you think the "average citizen" (as George Wallace used to put it) would feel about adding an extra 31% to the cost of each and every thing they bought each and every day all year long? Have you ever used the Internet to "get around" a measly state sales tax? What would you do to avoid 31%? Most people get mad about income tax once a year, but the Fair Tax would be a constant daily reminder of government taxation.

As a practical matter, when people got jolted with a good solid punch from that "simple" system, there'd be an outcry such as the country has never heard. Politicians would be scrambling for cover -- screaming in protest against this "outrageous burden on the backs of the working poor."

[JoshinNC]

You are right, there will be a "give away" as you call it

I see nothing "fair" about the so called fair tax. It punishes the ones that can least afford to pay it and is a much larger percentage of their income.

Of course, now that I think about it, there will probably be some sort of give away to anyone making under $50,000 - along the lines of EIC. But look how many votes that will buy, telling everyone that they will get "free" money.

LT

Assume that it is determined that normal living expense for a family of four (housing, food, electricity, etc.) are $30,000 per year and 23% of that is $6900. They will recieve a direct deposit from the government on the first of the month for 1/12 of their $6900 to use to offset their Fair Tax payments. So, if they can live within their means and actually save their money as opposed to spending every penny they would have an effective tax rate of $0, just like they would today.

[JohnH]

True, but

they also aren't going to like it when a future Congress decides they got too much of a good deal and figures out how to tax their Roth withdrawals (at least the earnings portion). They will most likely tell us it's being done out of "fairness" to all the unfortunate ones who never had the opportunity to put money into a Roth in the first place or some other class-division nonsense.

[Bees Knees]

People who just paid a bunch of tax on their Roth IRA conversions aren't going to like talk of repealing the tax code.

[xgflek]

I know one proposal on the fair tax set up an amount as basic living costs, and I dont know what the figure is but say $12000 and then proposes to mail out monthly checks to everybody in the amount of the sales tax on those costs, say $230 to everybody. Again not real sure of the specifics. As far as worrying about collecting 23% on our fees, if this ever passed I wouldn't have many fees to collect, part of the proposal is elimination of IRS and income tax returns, so I guess I would have to start preparing a ton of sales tax returns.

[joanmcq]

23% tax? I think my taxes would go up, except that I'm not a big shopper, although I do like to eat.

I wonder what it would do to our economy...remember when they tried the luxury sales tax (affecting those most likely not to be affected much by a tax increase) and yacht sales plummented?

[thomtax]

Fair Tax?

I see nothing "fair" about the so called fair tax. It punishes the ones that can least afford to pay it and is a much larger percentage of their income.

Of course, now that I think about it, there will probably be some sort of give away to anyone making under $50,000 - along the lines of EIC. But look how many votes that will buy, telling everyone that they will get "free" money.

LT

[Jiggers]

Fair Tax

No CG tax, no income tax, no AMT, no SS or Medicare tax, no estate tax, just a 23% national retail sales tax.

So, taxes are going up?

That means that vendors at these arts and crafts events in small towns have to collect 23% tax?

That means that landlords have to collect 23% tax on the rent?

That means that farmers who sell hay to other farmers have to collect 23% tax?

That means that farmers who sell calves and other cattle have to collect 23% tax?

That us tax preparers have to collect 23% on our fees?

When pigs fly!

[JoshinNC]

Huckabee supports the Fair Tax

Here’s an example.

First tax law passed in 1993 after Bill Clinton was elected was to raise the top marginal rate to 39.6%. The 1992 top marginal rate was 31% (raised by George Bush Sr. after breaking his no new taxes promise). The top rate was originally suppose to be 28% according to the schedule set by the 1986 tax act after Ronald Regan compromised with Congress and agreed to drop a number of tax deductions in favor of lower top marginal rates.

We still have a top 35% rate, but many of the deductions lost in 1986 (credit card interest deduction, employee business expenses subject to the 2% AGI limit, meals and entertainment expenses subject to 50%, etc.) are still here.

Now Congress is holding up an AMT bill because some in power want another surcharge on the top marginal rate to pay for lost revenue from a possible AMT reform bill.

Question: What is the position each candidate has on taxes? Who wants to fix Estate Taxes so the exemption doesn’t drop back down to $1 million with a top rate of 55% in 2011 (as it is scheduled to do under current law)? Who wants to eliminate the 15% rate for LTCG and QD? Who wants the 39.6% rate to come back in 2011 as it is currently scheduled to do under current law?

Those types of issue are OK to discuss on this message board.

No CG tax, no income tax, no AMT, no SS or Medicare tax, no estate tax, just a 23% national retail sales tax.

[Bees Knees]

Bees Knees, is there a website that does a comparison of these and related issues for each candidate.

This would be a good subject for our organizations (NAEA, NATP, NSTP, CPA, etc.) to pursue. But I doubt if any will.

These issues affect my pocket book, personally and for my clients who pay me.

I don't know. I doubt it. Most politicians try to be vague so professional organizations that understand the issues can’t nail them down to any one position.

To be frank, I really don’t care who gets elected, as long as they are for changing the rules. I make my living translating new tax law into plain English. If they make it too easy, I’m out of a job. I like it when Congress changes the rules on us every other month.

[Jiggers]

Candidates positon on taxes

Here’s and example.

First tax law passed in 1993 after Bill Clinton was elected was to raise the top marginal rate to 39.6%. The 1992 top marginal rate was 31% (raised by George Bush Sr. after breaking his no new taxes promise). The top rate was originally suppose to be 28% according to the schedule set by the 1986 tax act after Ronald Regan compromised with Congress and agreed to drop a number of tax deductions in favor of lower top marginal rates.

We still have a top 35% rate, but many of the deductions lost in 1986 (credit card interest deduction, employee business expenses subject to the 2% AGI limit, meals and entertainment expenses subject to 50%, etc.) are still here.

Now Congress is holding up an AMT bill because some in power want another surcharge on the top marginal rate to pay for lost revenue from a possible AMT reform bill.

Question: What is the position each candidate has on taxes? Who wants to fix Estate Taxes so the exemption doesn’t drop back down to $1 million with a top rate of 55% in 2011 (as it is scheduled to do under current law)? Who wants to eliminate the 15% rate for LTCG and QD? Who wants the 39.6% rate to come back in 2011 as it is currently scheduled to do under current law?

Those types of issue are OK to discuss on this message board.

Bees Knees, is there a website that does a comparison of these and related issues for each candidate.

This would be a good subject for our organizations (NAEA, NATP, NSTP, CPA, etc.) to pursue. But I doubt if any will.

These issues affect my pocket book, personally and for my clients who pay me.

[Bees Knees]

Here’s an example.

First tax law passed in 1993 after Bill Clinton was elected was to raise the top marginal rate to 39.6%. The 1992 top marginal rate was 31% (raised by George Bush Sr. after breaking his no new taxes promise). The top rate was originally suppose to be 28% according to the schedule set by the 1986 tax act after Ronald Regan compromised with Congress and agreed to drop a number of tax deductions in favor of lower top marginal rates.

We still have a top 35% rate, but many of the deductions lost in 1986 (credit card interest deduction, employee business expenses subject to the 2% AGI limit, meals and entertainment expenses subject to 50%, etc.) are still here.

Now Congress is holding up an AMT bill because some in power want another surcharge on the top marginal rate to pay for lost revenue from a possible AMT reform bill.

Question: What is the position each candidate has on taxes? Who wants to fix Estate Taxes so the exemption doesn’t drop back down to $1 million with a top rate of 55% in 2011 (as it is scheduled to do under current law)? Who wants to eliminate the 15% rate for LTCG and QD? Who wants the 39.6% rate to come back in 2011 as it is currently scheduled to do under current law?

Those types of issue are OK to discuss on this message board.