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Bush's advisory panel on tax reform largely agree that the individual alternative minimum tax, or AMT, should be fully repealed the committee's chairman said Wednesday.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.
No, only in fair taxers threads, since fair taxers are by far the worst name-callers on this forum. Their patently dishonest arguements and childish name-calling makes me think I should stop debating in these idiotic threads. The Fair Tax is a dead horse.
"The prebate is there to encourage the Demoncrats to support the bill and make the tax progressive. I don't like it, but I understand it."
I disagree. The rebate is there because the research that went into the FairTax indicated that the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to a system that made it impossible for those at the lower end of the economic ladder to afford basic necessities. The traditional method of addressing that with sales taxes is by exempting certain items/categories. That is administratively difficult, as well as subjective and open to political manipulation, which is what we are trying to minimize.
The rebate is not only simpler, it is imminently fair to not tax anyone (regardless of income or consumption level) for purchases up to the poverty level.
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.
And continued to not pay tax afterward because their income was derived in a large part from tax free Muni portfolios, i.e. the sheep got sheared easily with the class warfare shill...
"Its a 19th Century tax system for a 21st Century economy."
Worth repeating. Globalization is THE economic megatrend of this point in time. We either adjust and adapt to it or pay the consequences. At the rate we are going, by the year 2010, we will have a 100,000 page tax system and a one trillion $/year trade deficit. Is that really where we want to be in another 5 years?
Does everyone realize that we are the ONLY advanced country on the globe that is currently importing far more than we export? Japan doesn't, Germany doesn't, the UK doesn't, nobody else. Sobering thought, isn't it?
"If it, however, concludes that the farttax is not the best way to reform our tax system, then for the farttaxers I guess it would seem to be nonsense."
AR, since you are so sensitive to insults on these threads, I thought that I would point this post out to you.
"Please keep up your idiocy."
Is anyone keeping track of the insults by the SQLs? I have lost count by now.
AR, any idea?
Is anyone keeping track of the insults by the SQLs? I have lost count by now.I count one by you in this post.
"Is anyone keeping track of the insults by the SQLs? I have lost count by now."
"I count one by you in this post."
What did I say that was insulting? Is the term SQL insulting?
sql = status quo lover iirc. not an insult to you.
You use it in a deragotary way to suggest we love the IRS. Just because we think the fair tax is a moronic idea that would destroy our economy and is based on lies, does not mean we love the IRS.
"I count one by you in this post."
Is that the only insult that you have taken note of on this thread? I think the psychological term for that is "cognitive dissonance".
There are at least 6 derogatory references to me as "Always Wrong" by several different fair taxers. Eventhough they would not now right from wrong if it hit them across the face. It is much easier count is how many posts by fair taxers don't contain a derogatory reference.
sql = status quo lover iirc. not an insult to you.You recall wrong. It is meant as and is taken as an insult.
Is that the only insult that you have taken note of on this thread? I think the psychological term for that is "cognitive dissonance".Jeez, look at last few posts.
I am for repealing ALL personal income tax.
The sky may be blue, but your reasoning about the employees taking a pay cut to reduce prices is off the mark - WAY off the mark.
Some part of the present income taxes is embedded into the prices of the things we now buy making them more expensive than they will be under the FairTax. That's why a number of countries have switched to a VAT system - but they normally combine it with income and/or other sorts of taxes making it, in reality, a hybrid tax system. It also doesn't work too well as a bit of internet searching would show you.
Under the FairTax, the government is merely another buyer and prices that are lower for end consumers will also be lower for the government. The amount lowered - be it 5, 10, 20% or more - we can argue about all day but the point is prices will be lowered.
Also a given amount of earnings presently is reduced by the effect of income taxes giving the wage earner less to work with, not more - and he has no choice in the matter; many taxes are just TAKEN from him without even a "thank you". Under the FairTax, the wage earner gets to decide when and if he makes a taxable purchase (or perhaps buys a used item, saving tax) - the control of this decision is his and not the governments. And THAT'S a fact whether the sky is blue or not.
Why do you SQL as an insult?
I recalled correctly. SQL means status quo lover.Your lack of sentence capitalization led me to believe your post said something else.
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.