Posted on 07/20/2005 12:51:23 PM PDT by Your Nightmare
Members of President Bush's advisory panel on tax reform largely agree that the individual alternative minimum tax, or AMT, should be fully repealed the committee's chairman said Wednesday.
"I think the obvious consensus was on the AMT on the individual side. We didn't end up with a consensus on the corporate side, even though I think it's fair to say that I think all panel members felt the corporate AMT was really not an effective way to tax," Chairman Connie Mack, a former Republican senator from Florida, told reporters after a public meeting of the committee.
The AMT is a parallel tax system created in 1969; it was enacted after it was revealed that a handful of extremely wealthy Americans paid no income tax. But thresholds for the AMT were never indexed for inflation. As a result, it has encompassed or threatened a growing number of middle-income taxpayers over the years. Lawmakers and administrations have responded by temporarily pushing up the threshold, but have yet to come up with a complete fix.
It's also become a substantial revenue source. Full repeal would reduce revenues by more than a trillion dollars over 10 years.
During the panel discussion, committee member Bill Frenzel said he agreed that it was time to "bite the bullet" and press for full repeal, but warned that doing so will put a "huge burden" on the panel to find a way to make up the lost revenues.
The panel's vice chairman, former Democratic Sen. John Breaux, said that while he's not a fan of the AMT, the panel must examine whether the full repeal of the system would allow some of the nation's highest earners to get away with paying no tax at all.
Mack replied that if that were the case, the committee would have to make adjustments in order to maintain roughly the same tax burden on the upper quintile of earners that is now in place.
The panel members agreed that changes to the corporate AMT would best be tackled as part of a broad corporate tax reform, Mack noted.
The committee, formally known as the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, must present the Treasury Department with a set of tax-reform proposals in September.
Bush has set a number of ground rules for the panel, however. The proposals must be revenue-neutral. Also, future tax measures can't touch the code's most sacred cows -- mortgage interest deduction and charitable giving.
It is only your opinion that it would be a disaster.
I see you lost your ticks. Did you get dipped?Nope, the alarm started ringing. The beginning of the end of the FairTax is here.
It is only your opinion that it would be a disaster.Yeah, what's your opinion (or do you consider them facts?).
That's because a VAT is a sorry idea.
Hell, why not make it 1000% and quadruple the FCA? The government could make tons of revenue taxing itself and send us citizens huge "prebates."According to one of their moron's examples (It must have been their AFT Scientologist director of research) at the end of the year, if you include the "prebate" you would actually have more spendable income than gross income...(the words "gross income" eludes them)...and they say it isn't a welfare check.
I've asked them several times. If the "prebate" to "untax" the poor is such a good idea why not increase the "prebate" (GAG!) to untax the middle class too?...or like you say, why stop there?
My other question about their (phoney) rebate to cover the tax on my "necessities" is: What are my necessities and what do they cost me?
There are two parts to the payroll taxes. The employer contribution and the employee contribution. But you knew that. You just chose to ignore it.
That's because a VAT is a sorry idea.There are worse...
I think calling them cult members hit a sore spot.
The employer contribution and the employee contributionThey're both the employee's contribution. The employer contributes on the employee's behalf...if he didn't do that he could give the entire amount to the emoployee...everyone but you knows that.
Sounds like a WONDERFUL idea! Is that what your beef with the Fair Tax is about?
Sounds like a WONDERFUL idea! Is that what your beef with the Fair Tax is about?
Sorry, but that theory you guys have about wages having to be reduced to make up for no withholding is just stupid.
And it is like AR, YN, and LL are IRS agents afraid they're going to lose their jobs.
Uh huh.
No it is not stupid, it is the bloody only possible way it could happen. If you do not extract all the income taxes out of the costs of the products and pass it on to the consumer, prices can not come down after you add a revenue neutral sales tax on. If workers pocket the taxes, prices go up....Q.E.D.
The reason you think I'm "biased" of course is that I disagree with you. In the case of the Panel Staff I don't just "declare" them biased, but show where their analysis if off base and inaccurate.Based on what? They have posted but a thumbnail sketch of their methodology. So how were you able to show "where their analysis if off base and inaccurate."
Actually, I won't tell you the very descriptive term I have for you. Actually.
Sounds like a WONDERFUL idea!Collecting the same amount of money from fewer taxpayers is a "wonderful idea"?
I guess it would be if you weren't one of the few.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.