Yea compared to the Rep's that would just spend more and borrow more.
So how much has the deficit gone up while Rep's were in charge?
And this is how the budget is made, look it up before trying to act like you know whats going on.
"Federal budget estimates are based on assumptions that there would be no AMT relief and that the $50 billion from 2007 tax returns would be flowing into government coffers."
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
This has nothing to do with the rest of the budget mess.
The damn budget shouldn't be created based on mythical revenue amounts.
This has to do with the Democrats wanting to levy additional taxes to "make up" for the shortfall in tax revenue that fixing the AMT would cause. Nevermind the fact that this tax revenue should have never existed in the first place if the AMT were to be fixed. They are just making yet another money grab.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Who cares if it's fair or its intent. If it goes away and people pay less, the deficit expands. This is the golden rule of government and taxes: They go up, they don't go down. You can kill AMT, but if you think gov will get its fingers out of the arse, forget it; they'll merely increase taxes elsewhere. I don't recall SS being setup as a catch-all for lazy dumbasses who never saved fore retirement despite a lifetime of productive employment, but it's not going anywhere, either.
Fine. Spending cuts. Let's start with the military. The republicans have more than happily spent this money that should never have existed in the first place. I didn't see Bush putting much effort into repealing AMT and with his runaway spending it's just as well.
Fine. Spending cuts. Let's start with the military. The republicans have more than happily spent this money that should never have existed in the first place. I didn't see Bush putting much effort into repealing AMT and with his runaway spending it's just as well.
Nope. The defiit expands because of SPENDING. This is a tax increase if left alone but if it is fixed then revenue from the tax will still go up but not hit people not intended to be hit by the tax. The only way it would reduce tax revenue would be by eliminating it and there isn't majority support for such an elimination. There is however plenty of support for another round of "fix" but the dem leadership just doesn't seem to want to fix it for whatever reason(IMO it's a money grab).
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
See above bolded sections. That's a point I've been trying to make here too. The change would be "revenue neutral" if it was just rolled back to '06 levels.
Does it strike anybody else how stupid an AMT change would be if they merely raised taxes a like amount elsewhere?
I mean what's the point? At the end of the day you'd still owe the same increased amount of taxes. Does anybody really care if it's called "AMT" or "regular" tax?
Fern
Good, the more money they grab the better.
Hopefully it will piss off enough people that they finally do something about it.
In the case of the rich Republicans they can go to a country of their choosing.
All others revolt against the politico thieves.
:laugh: The AP is clueless. "$50 billion cost of the tax relief" Uhh hello dumbass "journalist" - quit spewing the democrat's BS. It isn't tax relief - it is preventing the tax from dramatically increasing. It will still be more than last year. Sheesh.
Or stop spending increases. Oh wait the social inductrial complex consumes 2/3rds of our budget and indexes itself each year.
Fine mess we got ourselves into here.
Being an adult would mean they wouldnt have spent the money the AMT took from people as they knew it wasnt money the govt was supposed to take.
Why is it the left always get fiscally conservative when a tax is being taken away? Live within our means all the time and we could cut taxes on a regular basis without worrying about running up debt. Less taxes equal more freedom. In essence we are slaves to the stat until some time in April due to our taxation.
Why do people like you care more for a foreign country like Iraq than your own citizens in America?
You're free to move to Iraq and help them out since you apparently care for them so much.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Nobody.
International tax CPA here (althought haven't done much international work in a few years), the question is "what loopholes"?
You gotta watch Congress, chances are it's not actually a "loophole". Those were closed a long time ago. Subpart F of the internal revenue code was created for just that purpose, and it's been around for decades.
Know how Congress has a habit of calling a bill the "Clean Water Act" etc and all it does is LESSEN polluction controls? Gotta watch their naming schemes, it's usually BS.
If there are loopholes such as they claim, why not close them whether or not AMT is involved? Chances are there really aren't any such loopholes.
Fern
The super rich who benefit from them, and their servants (paid, or ideologues).
You do know that by far the worst abusers of this have been the Bush administration and the republican congress is enjoyed (the source of your example, 'Clear Skies', etc.)?
Fair enough point, though. The super-rich don't pass bills to screw the public by naming them the "make the rich richer at the expense of the public" bill, they use language to hide the effects - remember the 'trickle down' theory of economics, the propaganda behind which to fool the public into choosing policies giving more to the top?
Of course the effect - the term was introduced in policy under Reagan - was that in the last 25 years, only the top 20% have increased their income after inflation, and nearly all of that to the top sliver of the top 20%, while the bottom 80% are flat at best. So they move on to other language - such as Bush's tax cuts "for everyone" which in fact gave a huge percent of American an average cut of $4, with the money disproportionately going to the rich.
It seems to me that the typical right-winger's approach to the topic of which party has the spending problem is to note that the republicans are behaving very badly, but they say they like low spending, and that carries a lot of weight with the republicans; while since the democrats don't say (lie) about the issue as much, the ASSUMPTION is that the democrats are in favor of more spending, shamelessly, than the republicans; the righties don't seem to consider the actual histories of the parties on spending in reaching a conclusion.
If you look at the facts, was spending and borrowing more responsible, in the last 40 years, under the republicans or the democrats? Under Clinton, or under Reagan, and Bush 41/43?
You're right, that there is huge nastiness buried hidden in Congressional bills. Our media fall short, IMO, on exposing it, and in today's consumer-driven media, the public shares blame.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
--H.R.3996--
H.R.3996
One Hundred Tenth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven
An Act
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT.
(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption amount) is amended--
(1) by striking `($62,550 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2006)' in subparagraph (A) and inserting `($66,250 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)', and
(2) by striking `($42,500 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2006)' in subparagraph (B) and inserting `($44,350 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.
(a) In General- Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for taxable years 2000 through 2006) is amended--
(1) by striking `or 2006' and inserting `2006, or 2007', and
(2) by striking `2006' in the heading thereof and inserting `2007'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not exactly a fix, but a temporary rise in the income level qualifications. Another $400.00 or so that gets to stay in the pockets of the rich. (cue howard dean screech)
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
GOP had ample opportunity to cut spending to make room for a permanent AMT fix, and instead they exploded it. Less taxes under GOP means more debt, and more debt means less freedom, not more.
You can repeat your rightwing cliches till the cows come home, GOP had a chance to do things its way. We saw the results from 2002-2006. The American people don't want it anymore. That party simply cannot govern, and should not be trusted with governing. As such, I will stick with the Democrats on AMT. They are right, if you want a tax cut, you need to make choices, not put it on the tab for future generations to pay off.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter