Alternate Minimum tax

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111
Truth hurts, eh?

No. You're just a moron. The issue isn't the amount of the AMT, it's who falls under it because the cut-off line for AMT vs. not AMT has not been indexed for inflation. And this hasn't been changed by EITHER party. Stop dodging the true issue, which is indexing the AMT for inflation.

Then why didnt the Democrats index it in 1993?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

/snip

Truth hurts, eh?

It's true that the 1993 bill slightly increased the AMT's family income exemption, but Democrats refused to index those exemptions for inflation.

dodge again...

Yeah, the Dems screwed up in not indexing it properly. But you fail to remember that the dems lost power shortly after that. The Republicans held power in Congress for another decade after that.

Again, both parties had the chance to change it and did not. If it had been properly indexed so it would serve its original purpose, then we wouldn't be having this discussion despite the Dems raising the rates in 1993. Remember to whom the AMT was targeted back during its inception. Many Americans would still agree that it was well-intentioned, and would've worked well if not for a proper indexing, rates be damned.

Most people who pay AMT live in New Jersey, California, New York, and other high tax blue states. It's not a Republican problem.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111
Truth hurts, eh?

No. You're just a moron. The issue isn't the amount of the AMT, it's who falls under it because the cut-off line for AMT vs. not AMT has not been indexed for inflation. And this hasn't been changed by EITHER party. Stop dodging the true issue, which is indexing the AMT for inflation.

Then why didnt the Democrats index it in 1993?

Then why didn't the Republicans index it in 1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003.2004,2005,2006, or with them eeeebil Democrats in 1006,2007,or 2008? Hmmm?

Look, we can go in this debate ad nauseum pointing fingers. Stop dodging and denying the real issue here. You are getting nowhere.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111
Truth hurts, eh?

No. You're just a moron. The issue isn't the amount of the AMT, it's who falls under it because the cut-off line for AMT vs. not AMT has not been indexed for inflation. And this hasn't been changed by EITHER party. Stop dodging the true issue, which is indexing the AMT for inflation.

Then why didnt the Democrats index it in 1993?

Then why didn't the Republicans index it in 1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003.2004,2005,2006, or with them eeeebil Democrats in 1006,2007,or 2008? Hmmm?

Look, we can go in this debate ad nauseum pointing fingers. Stop dodging and denying the real issue here. You are getting nowhere.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...0&session=1&vote=00271

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111
Truth hurts, eh?

No. You're just a moron. The issue isn't the amount of the AMT, it's who falls under it because the cut-off line for AMT vs. not AMT has not been indexed for inflation. And this hasn't been changed by EITHER party. Stop dodging the true issue, which is indexing the AMT for inflation.

Then why didnt the Democrats index it in 1993?

Then why didn't the Republicans index it in 1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003.2004,2005,2006, or with them eeeebil Democrats in 1006,2007,or 2008? Hmmm?

Look, we can go in this debate ad nauseum pointing fingers. Stop dodging and denying the real issue here. You are getting nowhere.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...0&session=1&vote=00271

That is a motion to repeal the AMT entirely. Fail. That is not a motion to index it to inflation or some other reasonable metric. The idea of an AMT is widely supported. Repealing it entirely is total overkill. I am not surprised at all that it did not pass regardless of the party in charge. Try again.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111
That's what happens when the Democrats in the Senate don't want to provide tax relief to their own state.

Yep... always the Democratic party's fault :roll:

How about they are both at fault because they both continue to do nothing except put a band-aid or two on the problem? I'm sure there are a few politicians in both parties interested in fixing the underlying issue of the AMT, but they are drowned out by the rest of their parties. Or is that too much for your small brain to wrap around? (If so, just forget I said anything and keep moaning about Obama and the rest of the Democrats).

Which party is in power? Which party was in power in 1993 when the AMT was hiked?

winnar, the problem isn't that the tax was hiked. People aren't bitching about that. What they ARE bitching about is that the threshold wasn't indexed to inflation or some other metric. It was flawed to begin with that way. Eventually, EVERYONE will fall under the AMT given time. If it had been indexed to inflation to begin with, it would be a non-issue. BOTH parties had the opportunity to fix this, but sat on their thumbs.

The tax rates on the AMT schedule were hiked in 1993.

http://online.wsj.com/article/...OLLECTION=wsjie/6month

In addition to raising gas taxes and Medicare payroll taxes and income tax rates, the Democratic Congress that year also raised the AMT: from a 24% flat rate to a dual tax rate of 26% on AMT income up to $175,000 and 28% on AMT income above that amount.

A Joint Tax Committee (JTC) analysis requested last year by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa shows that about 11 million more Americans will have to pay the AMT next year thanks to the higher post-1993 AMT rates.

Dodge...

Truth hurts, eh?

It's true that the 1993 bill slightly increased the AMT's family income exemption, but Democrats refused to index those exemptions for inflation.

You're simply misinformed. Apparently, you've been reading an old WSJ article that essentially lied about the reason for "AMT creep." The real truth is:

The Wall Street Journal is an important source of financial news, but people should not expect to read its editorial page without their spin antennae turned on. Today's editorial on the AMT is a good example of the way the Journal does partisan (and misleading) spin. It's titled "Bill Clinton's AMT Bomb," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 23, 2007, at A10 (available online only to those who pay).

What's wrong with it?

First, it lays the continuing downward creep of the AMT at Clinton's feet, in spite of the fact that the AMT downward creep is directly related to two things--the lack of indexation (which has not yet been passed by any Congress or pushed by any president) and the nature of the Bush tax cuts (they lowered top rates for the regular tax so much that it made many more taxpayers subject to the AMT, and they intentionally did not lower the AMT rates).

The Journal blames Clinton for the AMT because the Clinton administration did the sensible thing--when top rates were raised, the AMT rates were raised as well so that the AMT could continue to function parallel to the regular system the way it was intended to. (Clinton also increased the AMT exemption--permanently, unlike the Bush Congress.) If the Bush administration had applied the same logic that the Clinton administration applied, it would have lowered the AMT rates (and again increased the exemption permanently, because of inflation) when it lowered the regular tax rates, so that the AMT would have continued to function parallel to the regular system in the way it was intended to.

That would have prevented any problem of the AMT slipping down into the middle class other than from the lack of indexation (which nobody has yet really dealt with). But that would have also forced the Bush administration to acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts were far deeper revenue reductions (and far more beneficial to wealthy Americans) than it apparently wanted to admit. So it didn't do the aboveboard thing and instead decided to argue that it could take care of the AMT later.....

Second, the Journal blames Clinton for not indexing the AMT exemption to inflation. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. At some point, someone should decide just how far down the AMT is targeted, set the exemption appropriately, and then index it for inflation. But the Bush Congress didn't do anything but a year-by-year "fix" to the exemption amount, and even then only when it was pushed to do so. Why does the Bush-supporting and Clinton-bashing Journal pick out the failure of the 1993 changes to index the amount as the time it didn't get indexed, instead of the 2001, 2003, and other changes during the Bush administration?

There's much more. Read the rest at

taxing matters

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111
Truth hurts, eh?

No. You're just a moron. The issue isn't the amount of the AMT, it's who falls under it because the cut-off line for AMT vs. not AMT has not been indexed for inflation. And this hasn't been changed by EITHER party. Stop dodging the true issue, which is indexing the AMT for inflation.

Then why didnt the Democrats index it in 1993?

facepalm...

 

[IGBT]

It's teh ever expanding definition of "rich". if you have earned income, your rich.