Behold a dark horse.

[Black Bart]

Huck(our ex-governor)'s kinda movin' up in the polls, isn't he?

[veritas]

Chuck Norris

supports him.

What more can you ask for?

[JoshinNC]

He's the only candidate "selling" the Fair Tax

The Republican base is so pissed off at Congress for bloating government and increasing spending that this type of radical change may be their only hope for getting the base back.

[ChEAr$]

I like it

Huck(our ex-governor)'s kinda movin' up in the polls, isn't he?

Your subject; sounds like a good name for a novel. Or if it's about Huckebee's campaign,
a novelette. (grin

[taxxcpa]

The Republican base is so pissed off at Congress for bloating government and increasing spending that this type of radical change may be their only hope for getting the base back.

If you want radical change, how about Ron Paul? Some of his ideas sound good, but he seems a little extreme.

One problem with Huckabee is that he is one of the candidates who stated they did not believe in evolution. It is understandable that someone may not believe we evolved from a one-celled lifeform, but it seems hard to equate that to a complete absence of any form of evolution. His basis is the bible, but the bible also mentions the "four-corners of the world" which a literal reading could be interpreted as "proof" that the world is flat.

A good thing about Huckabee as a candidate is that he seems to be the most likeable personality and has a good sense of humor.

[veritas]

Ron Paul????

LOL


Shades of Ross Perot.

[veritas]

I don't believe in

macroevolution either.

[JohnH]

It's refreshing

To me it's refreshing to see a reference to evolution coupled with the word "belief", since most adherents of the theory prefer to refer to it as a "fact". Personally, I don't have enough blind faith to believe in evolution when I rationally consider the explanations scientists provide for it.

[Moderator]

O.K. folks. Let's go back in the direction of tax issues before this political/religious discussion deteriorates.

Thanks.

[erchess]

Taxes

I think it would be useful to discuss what people know about the ideas various candidates are putting forward concerning taxation. Of course that's only true if some people know a lot more than I do.

[Bees Knees]

I think it would be useful to discuss what people know about the ideas various candidates are putting forward concerning taxation.

Nothing wrong with discussing various tax proposals by the candidates. Can we do that without dragging every other issue into the conversation?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.