Alternative Minimum Tax Challenged by Top Republican Senator

Cato Institute ^ | May 24, 2005 | staff

[churchillbuff]

there is "a better way" - the FairTax."""

As long as the government is spending as much as it is, any tax system is going to be burdensome, because it will have to get the money from us one way or another. Spending has to be cut - - that means less money for federal aid to "education," less money for "medicare reform" -- and even less money for wars against countries that don't have WMDs (or in the case of Iraq, didn't even have an air force; we've blown 300 billion on a country that was no threat to us) Whether it's through fair tax, flat tax or same tax as now - they're going to have to tax us heavily as long as the government keeps spending like the proverbial drunk sailor.

[Protagoras]

Not going to happen.

What is the population of the country?

[pigdog]

No argumets on out-of-control spending here, mate. But the FairTax is a tax bill - can't be a spending bill; that's a separate argument.

With the FairTax bill, though, every Aamerican will know what his tax burden is since it will appear on every receipt of a taxable purchase. THAT should help promote a loud outcry sor cutting spending.

We first have to get the FairTax bill passed into law and that is becoming more likely as people find out what it really represents and ignore the scare-mongering of the Status Quo Lovers (SQL).

[steve-b]

Loony judicial activist.

[Protagoras]

It may very well happen sooner than you think my friend and millions of Americans are working toward that end as we speak.

No time in your life. No sale.

[Bigun]

No time in your life. No sale.

So you deny that the people of this country, even today, have the power to change whatever they want to about their government?

[pigdog]

See #43. Before being able to recognize how much government is actually costing we need a tax bill that clearly identifies this. The FairTax does so.

Until that happens most people think that others bear all the tax burden (or, in some cases, that they bear it all themselves). The point is - that's just guessing and we all know that spending is too high. Let's first get it out in the open where we can really begin to influence it to be a lot less. That's one of the benefits of the FairTax.

Then should you decide the government is spending too much you can have your own protest against spending by not consuming as much in the way of taxable items and saving more. Sort of an in-your-face tax protest. Not a bad idea at all.

[Protagoras]

So you deny that the people of this country, even today, have the power to change whatever they want to about their government?

Nope. I make my own statements, others don't get to say what they think I mean and add things or answer questions for me that were never even asked.

I say it won't happen, not that it can't.

I predict most people will reject the Fair Tax proposal if it ever gets realistic consideration.

I further opine that the majority of people like the class warfare that is the basis for the current government theft system.

[ancient_geezer]

Spending has to be cut - - that means less money for federal aid to "education," less money for "medicare reform" -- and even less money for wars against countries that don't have WMDs

And just what is supposed to invoke this miracle under the current income/payroll tax system keeping government on the upward march it has been on for the last 100yrs?

 

TAXES

 

100years of history under the income tax has made it clear that we will not get there (smaller government) from here (the income tax).

 

The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.

The pardigm must change!!

Think about it, when you put half the taxes out of the view of the electorate, and exempt half the population from even participating in the tax system:

Bush touts relief as tax day looms

Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.

That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, expecting someone else to foot the bill.

It's kinda ridicul-ass to believe the electorate will perform that vital function of "Eternal Vigilance" to hold government spending in check, with government imposed horse blinders on.

It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
Walter Williams

Walter Williams on the National Retail Sale Tax:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20041222.shtml

"Abolition of the IRS and the income tax code it enforces, replaced by a national sales, would create greater economic incentives, enhance personal privacy, and lower tax compliance cost by an estimated 90 percent. There'd also be greater faith and allegiance to our founders' constitutional vision, expressed in Article I, Section 9, which says, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." The founders feared the abuse and the government power inherent in an income tax. Another benefit of a national sales tax is that being taxed 23 percent to 30 percent with every purchase we become more aware of the cost of government. Income taxes and corporate taxes conceal that cost."

That among many reasons is why a change in how we are taxed is key to resolution of many problems in this nation.

[pigdog]

Certainly more than 600,000. That's why we're working on the rest of them - and gaining people who realize the benefits as we move along.

There were 75 economists all in one bunch just recently that came out for the FairTax.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=45733

or read the letter itself:

http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/Open_Letter_President.pdf

If you don't like the present system, how about pitching in to help change it?

[Bigun]

I say it won't happen, not that it can't.

I predict most people will reject the Fair Tax proposal if it ever gets realistic consideration.

I further opine that the majority of people like the class warfare that is the basis for the current government theft system.

OK! I guess we will just have to disagree about all that then.

[pigdog]

I'm kind of reminded of the first man who saw a giraffe and proclaimed "... there ain't no such animal ...".

What is it that makes you believe "most people will reject the FairTax proposal"? That's quite the opposite of what is actually happening when they find out in any depth what it is and what it does.

You can get behind it, too, to help make it happen ... just like with Alexander's Ragtime Band; "C'mon Along!!"

[Protagoras]

I don't like the present system and I don't like the sales tax system.

If I didn't know better, I'd say a lot of people on this site get a commission for pushing this stuff.

The thread is about the AMT. But like any thread with the word tax in it it looks like a sales opportunity for a specific proposal.

Just my opinion.

[Protagoras]

Yes we will.

[Protagoras]

No thanks.

[Bigun]

Since you did opine that getting rid of the communist inspired progressive income tax was a good idea (unless I misinterpreted what you said), and have rejected the idea I have proposed for doing so, would you be kind enough to inform me as to YOUR proposal for doing the deed?

[pigdog]

The FairTax is "about" the AMT also - it eliminates it along with many other types of taxes.

If you'd take a little time to do some reading about the FairTax, you might be in for some eye-opening insights as to its benefits. It's be worth a small investment of your time. Just go to the link given you in #40 or #26 for the bill itself.

And you're right about not getting a commission. I am associated with no organization and paid by no one. I truly believe after much research that the FairTax bill is the best tax plan available - and I've looked at a lot of them over many years.

[groanup]

I can't remember where I heard it but there is an opinion out there that Grassley is proposing the elimination of the AMT BECAUSE the NRST is gaining momentum. Head it off, so to speak. ???

[groanup]

If I didn't know better, I'd say a lot of people on this site get a commission for pushing this stuff

What makes you say that? There are 600,000 unpaid volunteers for the AFT. I'm one of them. Why shouldn't I come on this site and argue for my postition?

[Your Nightmare]

For, any revenue neutral rate for the NRST will be less than the 23% established during the Clinton years, when enacted under the criterial President Bush has set for tax reform bills:

Hate to burst your bubble but the 23% FairTax wasn't "revenue neutral" under Clinton and it's not now. And the Tax Reform Panel is looking at revenue neutrality over a 10 year period, not 1, so most of the tax cuts would have expired by then and I'm sure they will remember to factor in the increase in government expenditures and also account for the inventory credit. (Not that they have to worry about what rate the FairTax would be. There is absolutely no way they would recommend it.)