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Bush's advisory panel on tax reform largely agree that the individual alternative minimum tax, or AMT, should be fully repealed the committee's chairman said Wednesday.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.
So you believe the Fairy Tail that fictitious legal entities actually pay taxes?It's a stupid question, frankly.
Does your employer pay your taxes? Do the users of your product/service pay your taxes, health benefits, retirement plans etc. or do you pay them?
What do you have, a million bucks in mortgage interest and 8 kids?
Yes.
Bit snippy today, Louie? Ending the fiction of corporate taxation would bring some much needed honesty to the tax system, as well as eliminating many billions needlessly spent from compliance costs to lobbying (bribing) trying to appease the Federal beast in hopes he will eat you last.
Only people can pay taxes Louie, and you know it. Pretending that we tax "corporations" is only a way for politicians to hide the burden of their proliferate spending from the very people who actually do pay the "corporate tax" through higher prices, lower wages, or jobs not created.
Maybe you should check with your political "cube buddies" to ask why they get the vapors whenever someone points out the scam and shell game of "Corporate Taxation."
No (aside from the 6.6% of wage taxes that are rightfully part of my compensation although I never see that money.)
Do the users of your product/service pay your taxes...
If I'm doing pricing for my corporation, yes they do pay the corporate tax and compliance costs... I charge them more than the market price would otherwise be to cover the additional "costs" imposed by the IRS.
As for examples of your untruths, Nightie, just a few threads back I counted (only some of) your untruths - lies - and came up with 10 in one thread I believe it was (or maybe it was 11)Actually, you came up with zero. Just because you can't understand (or refuse to admit) something doesn't mean it's a lie.
Naw, Nightie - it was actually a lot more than 11 "untruths" of yours on the earlier thread. Being polite to a fault (as I am) I merely kept track of eleven. Just because your memory is now suddenly highly selective doesn't make them flip over into "truths" despite what you think.
And look who's using the rationale of "... can't understand (or refuse to admit) something ..." - the champ of same hisself!!
Next thing you know you'll be trying to tell us how the FairTax - which taxes the underground economy more heavily than the present system - is really "a wash" (I believe is how you described it as) with the present system!! We already demonstrated that your statement to that effect was a big, fat "untruth" (or did you just "misspeak"?).
You really are just a joke at this point (just like the FairTax).
Next thing you know you'll be trying to tell us how the FairTax - which taxes the underground economy more heavily than the present system - is really "a wash" (I believe is how you described it as) with the present system!! We already demonstrated that your statement to that effect was a big, fat "untruth" (or did you just "misspeak"?).#2
Just for chuckles, Nightie, you might check the number of bill cosponsors of your favored tax type - the flat tax.
I showed you earlier that s812 (Specter) had zero. Seems that s1099 (Shelby) also has 0 and hr1040 (Burgess) has 5. Now THAT'S support, eh? Seems like there's even a greeater number to go than with the FairTax.
Why don't you go before both houses and, with your inimitable style, convince them all to become cosponsors???
"2" ...???
Does that mean you are now claiming that the present tax system DOES tax the underground economy just as well as the FairTax does???
Or are you merely counting your Nightmare Tax supporters on the thread?
A very, very good tax preparer.
LL: Only when I buy their products/services...I like it that way.
That's just how the nrst works.
GM is reporting losses. How much of their income tax will be "imbedded" ...
The income tax itself is only a part of costs that result from the income tax system. The way you say it, GM had no accounting costs whatsoever in their determination of profits, expenses, etc. While they may pay no income tax proper this year, they have huge expenses related to their position. They also have employer payroll taxes which are rolled into prices or deducted from already existing reserves from previous sales revenue (ie prices).
Beyond that, business that consistently lose money will die.
That you refuse to acknowledge that prices are inflated by taxes and tax costs is the clearest indicator of your disingenuousness.
The nrst HR 25 eliminates those taxes and 90+% of the tax costs and replaces them with a single, visible sales tax at purchase.
Kick around here for 4 or 5 minutes.
I haven't examined this site carefully, but I've seen others talking about it. Let me know what it says for ya.
Why the fuss about rate. It's revenue neutral. It'll collect the same amount as now.
Eliminating the income tax code and repeal of the 16th has inumerable benefits don't you think?
What indicates to you that this is the case?
This is why your credibility suffers. Word games are spotted easily by FReepers.
The fairtax hr 25 is not hypothetical. It's passage is.
Why the fuss about rate. It's revenue neutral. It'll collect the same amount as now.It's not revenue neutral at 23%. As Treasury said, to replace just the individual and corporate income tax would require a rate of 25.4% inclusive.
Eliminating the income tax code and repeal of the 16th has inumerable benefits don't you think?First, the FairTax doesn't repeal the 16th. Second, eliminating the income tax and replacing it with the FairTax would be a disaster. Between the two, I'd stand pat.
What indicates to you that this is the case?Um, the bill.
The bill exists in Congress now (enter "hr 25" without quotes. Other than here, it has not been in legislation nor is it existing anywhere in the world now. Are you rejecting the nrst on the basis that we would be the first to try it?
Other countries have a sales tax, but it is in addition to income taxes (among others).
No other country has tried funding its government solely on sales taxes. The closest thing would be the United States using excises and duties before they started mucking around with income taxes in late 1800s.
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.