AMT and taxes: CNN article

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Apr 16 2007, 10:17 AM) [snapback]423954[/snapback]</div>

WSJ editorial today looking at figures from the CBO - 40% of Americans pay 99.2% of taxes. The top 1% and top 10% are paying more than ever.

The AMT will not be overturned by the Democrats - not with their calls for $400Billion in new spending. The AMT, although not a huge source of income for the Govt, is still too large to make up from other sources.

Funny, a tax to catch 21 millionaires who did not pay the taxes in the early 1970's now grabs MILLIONS of us - looks like stupidity gone amuck - or perhaps - your govt at work.

it is time for a flat tax or consumption tax.

there is no way that this current system sustains us for too much longer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 16 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]424007[/snapback]</div>

My thought is that AMT may be a backdoor route to tax simplification. As much as it is despised, it is a simpler system in that many of the usual deductions are effectively eliminated.

As AMT continues to work its way down the income ladder, the need for the existing tax structure will disappear and voila, a simplified tax system will be in place for most payers and the existing code can be discarded.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Apr 16 2007, 09:17 AM) [snapback]423954[/snapback]</div>

IMO, never happen. Too much political fallout. I can hear the attack ads now. "Senator X wants to abolish the AMT so he and his millionaire friends can pay less taxes while you pay more."

"Tax" and "reform" should never be used in the same sentence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JimN @ Apr 16 2007, 09:39 PM) [snapback]424355[/snapback]</div>

If we embarassed all campaigning politicians by asking them if they were smart enough to do their own taxes this year, the tax code might just get simplified a bit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 16 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]424007[/snapback]</div>

A flat-rate tax will do NOTHING to eliminate the inequities of the tax system. What's needed is a progressive tax rate applied to everyone's gross income. NO DEDUCTIONS OR CREDITS AT ALL! Then if the government wants to subsidize something, they have to do it directly, above-board, where it can be accounted and everyone can see the real cost and benefit of the subsidy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("CNN")</div>

The ironic thing is that families making between $75,000 and $100,000 are actually the "Rich". They are well into the top 25% of income tax filers and actually in the top 20%. In 2004, it took only an AGI of $60,000 to make it into the top 25%. It seems to me that the "middle" in "Middle Class" would imply people in the middle of wage spread. Certainly not people in the top 20% of wage earners or people real close to being in the top 10% of wage earners.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 17 2007, 06:00 AM) [snapback]424553[/snapback]</div>

I can only speak for myself. I consider myself very rich. I am in a high tax bracket where donations mean significant chunks off my tax.

I donate to both tax-exempt and non tax-exempt organizations, without regard for their tax status. I give according to my opinion of the work the organization does, and the efficiency with which it uses its money. The tax status of the organization has zero effect on how much I give it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 17 2007, 06:00 AM) [snapback]424553[/snapback]</div>

I cannot cite specific references, but I've read that the creation of tax-sheltered retirement accounts had very little effect on national savings rates. (And Americans, with all our different tax-sheltered retirement vehicles, save at miniscule, or negative rates overall.) What happened is that people moved savings out of conventional accounts, and into tax-sheltered accounts. They did not begin saving more.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 17 2007, 06:00 AM) [snapback]424553[/snapback]</div>

While I'd like to see all deductions and credits eliminated, I'd be happy to see some of them eliminated. But note that one person's "self-serving crap" is another person's critical national interest.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Apr 17 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]424557[/snapback]</div>

To me, "middle class" is a subjective term, which does not necessarily mean the median or average income, but rather the class of people that has all the basic necessities, plus basic economic security, but only modest amounts of luxuries. Some countries have a very small middle class, plus a very small wealthy ruling class, and an enormous working poor class. The U.S. has a very large middle class, but it is shrinking as more and more people slip into poverty, or that condition where they are getting by but have no economic security because an illness could plunge them into poverty.

In short, I don't think there's any clear definition of middle class. It has a lot to do with your perspectve.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 16 2007, 08:13 AM) [snapback]424007[/snapback]</div>

That's always the way ... when they say "the rich should pay more" you should always ask WHO the rich are before you jump on the bandwagon.

Baby You're a Rich Man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...e_United_States

The Democrats now want to "fix it", but they are the ones who created the problem in the first place:

From http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hott...ojrss=frontpage

It really is funny to see liberals complain about taxes. Noblesse oblige, indeed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 16 2007, 10:20 PM) [snapback]424467[/snapback]</div>

Gross Income? Hmm. So if my business is selling t-shirts and I sell $100,000 worth of shirts but my cost of goods sold is $99,000, I should be taxed as if I pocketed $100,000, not $1,000?

The solution sounds real simple until you talk about how to define income. Then you have to, by definition, talk about deductions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Apr 18 2007, 01:44 AM) [snapback]425181[/snapback]</div>

Dude, just shut up and pass the flat tax with no deductions and pay about 22% tax on the $100,000. We gotta get rid of you whiners if we're going to be able to fix the tax code!!!!