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Bush's advisory panel on tax reform largely agree that the individual alternative minimum tax, or AMT, should be fully repealed the committee's chairman said Wednesday.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.
One of your more unthinking posts Finial. The prebate is not at all an income guarantee nor is it meant to be. Nor is it easily manipulated as you seem to think; I'd suggest you read the bill (which so far as one can tell you have not yet done).
The prebate is not based on geography, social status, amount earned or any other of the liberal "social injustices".
It is based on family size (period). You get the same amount as Bill Gates if you have the same size family.
I'm not pretending anything about what SQL is or isn't. I asked
" Why do you see SQL as an insult?"
Why do you? Is loving the status quo an insult?
It's really a description of the contortions that some of you go through to defend the current tax system without seeming to defend the current tax system.
In addition, Nightie (and that is not an insult no matter what you take it to be), it saves a great deal of continual explanation on each thread to identify those of you who have this misguided philosophical outlook. It's sort of like someone pointing out that Fat Guys are those who weigh a lot without stating all sorts of qualifications.
You apparently are insulted to be told that others realize you defend the present tax system ... but that's what you do. And you are an SQL quite obviously.
Why do you? Is loving the status quo an insult?I would say so and, when directed toward me, is also a lie.
If you don't support the status quo (I think most would think you do), what is the alternative? Are you waiting for the prez's panel recommendation?
It's really a description of the contortions that some of you go through to defend the current tax system without seeming to defend the current tax system.That is complete and total BS. You call anyone who doesn't like the FairTax a "SQL." With you and the other Fanboys you either love the FairTax or you love the current system. There are no other alternatives.
In addition, Nightie (and that is not an insult no matter what you take it to be), it saves a great deal of continual explanation on each thread to identify those of you who have this misguided philosophical outlook.You mean it save time trying to marginalize anyone who might criticizes the FairTax. This is a typical Fanboy tactic.
You apparently are insulted to be told that others realize you defend the present tax system ... but that's what you do. And you are an SQL quite obviously.I don't defend the current system. I want it changed. But you Fanboys throw a tantrum anytime anyone challenges even your most absurd FairTax claims (and their are quite a few absurd claims).
If you don't support the status quo (I think most would think you do), what is the alternative? Are you waiting for the prez's panel recommendation?How many times do I have to say it? The Flat Tax.
Today it's the flat income tax - ok. Do you think the panel will recommend it?
That's absurd.
Today it's the flat income tax - ok. Do you think the panel will recommend it?The Flat Tax is not an income tax any more than the FairTax is. You could just as easily call the FairTax a Nation Income-Spent-on Retail Sales Tax. If anything, esp. on the individual level, the Flat Tax is a wage tax (which is a form of consumption tax). [This is the point where all the ignorant Fanboys squawk about how the Flat Tax is no different than what we have now and how the current system started as a flat tax, etc...]
"How many times do I have to say it? The Flat Tax."
How many times do I have to say it? "The Flat Tax" isn't a specific proposal, it's a form of taxation. Which specific proposal do you support?
"A bill is just a bill, not the law, if you want to know. It is like a dream, it is the wish of the sponsors who have competing interests (all law is written on the concept of competing interests). Once a law, a law can be amended either by legislation or by the direction given the administrating department within the law (like actions taken by the EPA since the congress legislated laws relating to environmental protection).
It may be what you say it is now, and that may sound good to you, but what do you say when the bill isn't even up for discussion, hasn't been read into the record, and won't be in the embodiment that you have blindly supported to date."
That isn't an argument that is specific to the FairTax. In fact, it isn't even specific to tax reform. It can be generalized to any and all public policy issues.
Is that your position, that individual citizens should never, under any circumstances, attempt to influence public policy because, after all, congress can ignore their wishes and do just the opposite of what they intended? Is it better for individual citizens to sit quietly by and take whatever congress wants to dish out?
How many times do I have to say it? "The Flat Tax" isn't a specific proposal, it's a form of taxation. Which specific proposal do you support?As I have also stated many times previously (what is it with you Fanboy's memories), none. It is completely pointless to support a specific proposal at this stage in the game.
You call anyone who doesn't like the FairTax a "SQL."
In fact, Nightie, you're quite mistaken (again). I only call certain selected folk by that appellation when they have amply demonstrated their opposition to all things FairTax no matter how far afield their positions are from reality (or logic). You happen to be one of those since you immediately attack any sort of positive information presented about the FairTax ... to you FairTax = lie.
If you were truly against the present system you'd be able to present your alternative in good detail but as it is you merely state a love for a hypothetical definition of one of two tax notions which have been called the Nightmare Tax and can be either a vague, undefined value added tax in theory or a vague, undefined flat tax in theory. Theory does not qualify as "good detail".
Which you prefer depends upon the particular argument against the FairTax you are embroiled at the moment. It may not have occurred to you but the FairTax supporters have been on FR many years before you came aboard - and they aren't going away. The fact that you perceive SQL to be an insult merely means it hits the mark and describes you correctly, I think.
There will be no FairTsax bill with a 3% rate that is supported by the FairTax movement. That would only be a hybrid tax and probably worse than what we presently have.
You need to read the FairTax bill - obviously you haven't (or possibly don't understand what it says).
I read the bill five years ago, it is like fish and house guests, it stunk when it arrived and stinks more everyday.
we can not afford a broadened tax base
It helps lower my burden if there are more taxpayers.
the income tax will always be with us
No it won't.
the public, rightly so, will never agree to pay a thirty odd percent tax on everything including a house or car
Well, they already are paying about that - but it's hidden. That's why so many folks say we need to end withholding and force people to feel the burden of big government.
there is little support for a so-called fairtax in DC
How do you know? I know of support in DC.
the fairtax bill as written will never be made law,
crystal ball?
The only thing that is true- it's already happening - is that we'll get a sales tax. The income tax must be repealed in order to avoid having both.
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.