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Bush's advisory panel on tax reform largely agree that the individual alternative minimum tax, or AMT, should be fully repealed the committee's chairman said Wednesday.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.
P: What indicates to you that this is the case?
Um, the bill.
It doesn't say that in the bill. Why not be honest?
I didn't say it was. Whatever the rate, it will be revenue neutral. So what's being collected now under the income/payroll/estate/gift et al will be the same amount collected under the nrst - whatver the rate. They are currently deciding what the revenue rate will be. Irrespective of the rate, it will be revenue neutral.
Eliminating the income taxes will have myriad benefits to our economy.
First, the FairTax doesn't repeal the 16th.
I didn't say it did. Read slower.
eliminating the income tax and replacing it with the FairTax would be a disaster
Why?
It doesn't 'say' that, but it does that. It taxes government spending and considers it revenues in its calculation. One of several major flaws used by the fair tax 'experts' or whores as I more appropriately call them.
This is why your credibility suffers. Word games are spotted easily by FReepers.Talk about word games. This is why you are called unPrincipled.
The fairtax hr 25 is not hypothetical. It's passage is.
Oh, and BTW, the government taxes themselves now - as has been pointed out to you previously on several occasions so the FairTax taxing them is no different. After all, the government employees could just be paid less presently and the government wouldn't have to pony up the extra funds that it now does just so the employees can pay income and payroll taxes (wouldn't those employees just love that?).
I didn't say you said it did. Read slower.First, the FairTax doesn't repeal the 16th.I didn't say it did. Read slower.
ehhh?
Government spending is already being taxed. What are you trying to pull?
According to the same analysis your preferred VAT tax would also have the same rates. See appendix A.
Guess you've become a ranch hand (Mustang Ranch, that is).
The government taxes itself right now, Always Wrong.
He says he prefers the VAT, but he doesn't. He only wishes to prevent any tax reform.
He also - sometimes - says he supports the Flat ... is one of those claims of support an "untruth", perhaps. Or does Nightie allow himself the lattitude to do that while others cannot (per him).
He didn't say you said it did (so you might as well not read at all) ... but that sure makes a keen off topic remark and one that isn't what was said in the first place - sort of your style all over the place, Nightie.
Certainly the bill hr25/s25 is tangible but it is hardly hypowhatever, Nightie. It is backed by tons of economic analysis by some of the best economists in the country. If it were so hypo... that wouldn't be possible.
I'm sure you'd agree.
LOL, no they don't. The federal government does not pay taxes directly to themselves as they would under the NRST. Federal employees pay tax on their income. People that provide goods and services to the federal government pay income tax. But the federal government does not pay income tax to itself.
According to the same analysis your preferred VAT tax would also have the same rates. See appendix A.Actually, that rate assumes the same level of evasion. A VAT is harder to evade than a NRST so the rate could be a little lower. But it's probably moot because I wouldn't expect to see a VAT recommended by the Panel.
Guess you've become a ranch hand (Mustang Ranch, that is).And, if they do it's counted as an expenditure.
The government taxes itself right now, Always Wrong.
That's just how the nrst works.No it doesn't.There likeley won't be any "imbedded" income tax in GM's products this year. It replaces ALL (including GM's) income taxes in every dime spent.
They also have employer payroll taxes which are rolled into pricesWon't employee's get 100% of their wage?...How is that a savings?
Income is taxed, not spending. And the federal government DOES NOT pay tax on its income. Under the NRST, the federal government would magically pay tax to itself to falsely reduce the rate required to be revenue neutral. By that logic you could just charge the federal government 100% sales tax and eliminate the sales tax on consumers altogether.
Interesting distinction Wrongie ... just who supplies the money for those employees to use to "pay taxes"?
The government could, if it chose, merely reduce the wages (thereby saving all that $$$) and not have any taxes paid (to itself, you see) - but that's not what is done.
Government spending is already being taxed. What are you trying to pull?Let me put it to you this way. In the bill, the FairTax increases the amount of taxes the government pays itself over the current system but it doesn't address the budgetary issues (increase in nominal expenditures) that arise because of this increase. It's Enron accounting. Treasury doesn't fall for this crap, thus the 25.4% rate just to replace the income taxes.
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.