Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Clinton's AMT Bomb (Alternate Minimum Tax Redux)
Wall Street Journal ^ | 23 February 2007 | Staff

Posted on 02/23/2007 4:40:20 AM PST by shrinkermd

As tax season nears, Democrats in Congress are discovering they have an urgent political bomb to defuse -- the alternative minimum tax. The AMT already hits four million Americans, and without new legislation this year it will explode in the pocketbooks of 23 million taxpayers

What's amazing is that many Democrats and reporters are trying to blame this looming tax increase on the 2001-2003 tax cuts. See if you can follow their argument: Taxpayers are obliged to pay the higher of their tax bill under either the regular IRS code or the AMT. And because the tax cuts reduced the regular income tax of the average family by $2,000 a year, more middle-class families are being bounced to the AMT system.

This logic requires overlooking that a taxpayer's bill under the AMT is still lower than it would have been without the tax cuts. But never mind: The political game here is to use the AMT as an excuse to justify repealing the Bush tax cuts.

In reality, the AMT is one more liberal monster that was created in the name of soaking the rich but has now come back to swallow the middle class. Democrats created the AMT in 1969, to capture a mere 21 millionaires who had paid nothing.

...A Joint Tax Committee (JTC) analysis requested last year by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa shows that about 11 million more Americans will have to pay the AMT next year thanks to the higher post-1993 AMT rates. The House Ways and Means Committee calculates that if you live in a high-tax state (such as California or New York) and have two or more kids, you're very likely to be hit with the AMT this year even if your income is as low as $75,000.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alternate; minimum; tax
The Democrats want more and more of your earned income.
1 posted on 02/23/2007 4:40:23 AM PST by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

The AMT in fact impacts only those in the top 20% of income.

If the Democrats want to tax the rich, well, that's just what it does. This is the group they would have to tax if they wanted to raise more revenue.


2 posted on 02/23/2007 4:41:59 AM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

There used to be a Frreper named "AlGoreThinksImRich". Haven't seen much him recently.


3 posted on 02/23/2007 4:44:12 AM PST by Bernard (Immigration should be rare, safe and legal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Anyone complaining about this needs to do it in the voting booth (Especially dems).

Comedy is when a dem family member complained about the AMT effecting her. After the laughing stop I told her you get what you vote for.

She has thankfully stopped voting for collectivist democrats.
4 posted on 02/23/2007 4:50:07 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
"The AMT in fact impacts only those in the top 20% of income. "

Is that household income? Wiki's saying that top 20% of households are those who make 88k and up. I wouldn't consider that 'Rich'
5 posted on 02/23/2007 4:54:22 AM PST by tfecw (It's for the children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tfecw
bah, i messed up my Wiki Link. Let's try again source for Post 5
6 posted on 02/23/2007 4:55:42 AM PST by tfecw (It's for the children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tfecw

Wiki's saying that top 20% of households are those who make 88k and up. I wouldn't consider that 'Rich'


Democrats certainly do. Out of one side of their mouth they bemoan the state of the middle class and out of the other call them rich in order to tax them more. Of course, if you asked a Democrat who specifically constituted the middle class they would probably tell you anyone making $20,000 or less.


7 posted on 02/23/2007 4:59:09 AM PST by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
If the Democrats want to tax the rich, well, that's just what it does. This is the group they would have to tax if they wanted to raise more revenue.

Well, according to the article: The House Ways and Means Committee calculates that if you live in a high-tax state (such as California or New York) and have two or more kids, you're very likely to be hit with the AMT this year even if your income is as low as $75,000.

The "problem" is that it is hitting the blue states disproportionately. Remember, in Dems' eyes people like the Kennedy Klan aren't rich while a Nebraska farmer is.

8 posted on 02/23/2007 5:00:38 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Samoans: The (low) wage slaves in the Pelosi-Starkist complex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
...if you live in a high-tax state (such as California or New York) and have two or more kids, you're very likely to be hit with the AMT this year even if your income is as low as $75,000.

In other words, me.

9 posted on 02/23/2007 5:08:29 AM PST by JRios1968 (Tagline wanted...inquire within)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

Why don't you read the tax law as it applies to those 18 and under?

You might be surprised that income of $ 40,000 can double the regular tax with AMT tax.


10 posted on 02/23/2007 5:20:01 AM PST by ADSUM (Democracy works when citizens get involved and keep government honest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM

The IRS applies the tax based on proportions, not real dollars. I was hit with the tax 5 years ago with a gross income of 35K. This was after the IRS computed my initial tax return. They came back a year later and did a recompute applying AMT and socked me for an additional 5K plus penalties and interest.


11 posted on 02/23/2007 5:25:12 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

They won't fix AMT. They can't afford to. That's why the premptive "Blame the Bush Tax Cuts" campaign is underway - the only place to get the money for those massive social spending schemes is from the 75K to 200K wage earners and they have to hope that at least the dumber members of that class will shut up and pay and not start blaming Democrats for the sudden tax hike.


12 posted on 02/23/2007 5:30:32 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
This is the group they would have to tax if they wanted to raise more revenue.

Ultimately, less revenue.

13 posted on 02/23/2007 6:03:39 AM PST by Niteranger68 (Point your toilets towards Mecca!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM
You might be surprised that income of $ 40,000 can double the regular tax with AMT tax.

Not really! ANYONE can wind up in AMT territory now! I have a Grandson who, paying state income tax through the nose (with a salary of about $50K/annum) has entered AMT territory this year due to large casualty losses and his having sold off some property at a capital gain to rebuild! While his net worth declined as a result, he became RICH in the view of the AMT!

The AMT is really arcane in its computation..., most folks don't even think about it until they are told by their tax preparer or the IRS that they owe it!

14 posted on 02/23/2007 6:14:10 AM PST by ExSES (the "bottom-line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RacerF150
This is the group they would have to tax if they wanted to raise more revenue.

Ultimately, less revenue.


Something liberals will NEVER grasp, it seems like. Every liberal I've ever talked to seems to think there's a static amount of income out there. After all, if the rich are getting richer, the poor must be getting poorer, right?
15 posted on 02/23/2007 6:17:14 AM PST by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
They won't fix AMT. They can't afford to.

I had a professor back in the mid-eighties who used to warn of a coming crises if the AMT was not fixed. The 'fix' was in the millions back then. I guess it is getting close to a trillion now...
16 posted on 02/23/2007 6:17:33 AM PST by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
Something liberals will NEVER grasp, it seems like. Every liberal I've ever talked to seems to think there's a static amount of income out there. After all, if the rich are getting richer, the poor must be getting poorer, right?

Exactly. Their economic background goes no further than a few (losing) games of Monopoly.

17 posted on 02/23/2007 6:54:19 AM PST by Niteranger68 (Point your toilets towards Mecca!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

I never understood why state taxes were deductible in the first place. Why should people in states with low tax rates, and fewer government services, subsidize states that have elected to pursue local socialism?


18 posted on 02/23/2007 6:58:45 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
"...I never understood why state taxes were deductible in the first place. Why should people in states with low tax rates, and fewer government services, subsidize states that have elected to pursue local socialism?

The answer is simple. Little, liberal states and a few big ones have the votes in the House and Senate to determine this. You are right. The big spending states are subsidized by the more frugal states because of the deduction of state and local taxes.

19 posted on 02/23/2007 7:03:08 AM PST by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson