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Bush's advisory panel on tax reform largely agree that the individual alternative minimum tax, or AMT, should be fully repealed the committee's chairman said Wednesday.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.
Liars are frequently tax cheats.
Tax cheats don't want the FairTax cuz they'll have to actually pay taxes under the nrst.
Tax cheats don't want the FairTax cuz they'll have to actually pay taxes under the nrst.The opposite is true.
How would a government agency know/find out if an individual didn't pay sales taxes under the NST?...Now which do you think would be easier to avoid taxes?
Well, YOU don't want the nrst....
Anything you've ever posted about me is a lie...period.
Well, YOU don't want the nrst....I don't want YOU'RE nrst...
Yes, Looey, we do wonder ... there's an office pool going that says you wear polka-dot skivvies. The bet is about the diameter of the dots.
We measure that with an arithmetic ruler. Could you fess up??? Inquiring minds want to know...
... and you have nowhere provided your sources for the statement you made showing what you claimed.
With your track record that makes it very clear that it is a big fat lie.
.
You posted this about yourself. Is it a lie too?
I am not an NRST!
It's easier - far easier - to disquise income than consumption and that is borne out indirectly by the IRS.
The IRS says they miss about 25% of what is actually collected just by "non-compliance" which by their own admission does not include evasion or illegal income.
It's hardly likely that Wal-Mart (for one) will be indulging in rampant sales tax cheating - and something like 80% of all consumption is through the big firms of that sort.
logic will be greeted with namecalling.
Does that "lie" business even include those posts made that describe you as a warm-hearted individual who is the salt of the earth as well as being a math genius (arithmetic, too)?
I'm shocked to hear that, Looey - just shocked!!
He posted this about himself. I wonder if it is a lie.
Dunno ... but it DOES seem to be a habit.
The amount of taxes collected from the higher prices under the embedded taxes of the present system are actually quite small.Double talk or contradicting yourself? One or the other for sure.----
The tax "contribution" of an income tax system is on the profit involved which is even smaller than the higher prices caused by the tax cascading....
There is no "tax cascading" but if you think you can prove there is by using your 2+2=5 "arithmetic", let's see your new math...You can be the first.
Oh, BTW use any kind of math you want but 7.65% of one employee's wage or 7.65% of 10 million employee's wages is still only 7.65% of all wages.
These statements aren't contradictory.
Embedded taxes per se are but a portion of the inflation due to the income tax system. This has eluded you yet again.
If I thought you could work out a simple arithmetic example to show yourself along the course I outlined, I'd suggest you do THAT. Since we've seen your ghastly Looey-rithmetic examples, I even hesitate to suggest that.
Perhaps you'll just have to remain ignorant.
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.