Posted on 06/11/2007 7:36:15 AM PDT by John Galt 72
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax? Sure, When Britney Spears Puts On Underwear
By Matt Carrothers
June 11, 2007
House Democrats last week floated a new scheme to eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT), replacing it with a 4.3 percent “surtax” on families with incomes over $500,000. Under this tax “reform” charade, liberals plan to further heap the burden of taxation on the income quintile that already pays the majority of income taxes.
The AMT is both an undue financial burden on millions of Americans and a morally repugnant assault on individual liberty. That is why Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, and House leaders are giddy about their new AMT plan. As their ideological guru Vladimir Lenin once stated, “It is true that liberty is precious – so precious that it must be rationed.”
Neal’s subcommittee held a hearing on March 7, 2007 to “explore the history, background, and policy reasons for the AMT.” A committee staffer could have researched the history, background and policy reasons for the AMT in less than an hour. In fact, in his opening statements, Neal himself claimed to be an expert of sorts on the AMT when he said, “The AMT is an issue that I have been battling for almost a decade – that’s right. I first filed a bill trying to protect middle-income families from the reach of the AMT back in 1998.” Apparently it’s true that only elephants have good memories.
The chairman continued, “The Ranking Republican on this Subcommittee, my friend, Mr. English, has also filed legislation to repeal the AMT reaching back to 1999. As Ambrose Bierce once wrote, ‘Patience is a minor form of despair disguised as virtue.’ If that is true, then Mr. English and I are very virtuous men.” And your humility knows no bounds.
Neal finally got around to uttering that illustrious code word legislators use to disguise their partisan agendas – bipartisan. He added: “The AMT is a bipartisan problem and we are seeking bipartisan solutions. It is a parallel and stealth tax system estimated to hit 23 million taxpayers this year, if we do not extend a $50 billion patch to the system.” Of course, it would be preposterous of we-the-doltish-taxpayers to expect Congress to cut $50 billion from its budget. Someone has to “pay for” tax cuts, and who better than the rich?
House and Senate Democrats have paid lip service before to eliminating the AMT. However, their salacious greed for taxpayer dollars and the opportunity to wage class warfare have precluded meaningful AMT reform beyond year-to-year “patches.”
The Washington Post last week reported that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) “favors” repealing the AMT, “but considers it too ambitious for this year.” Way to set the bar high, Senator. In fact, despite his claim, Baucus does not favor full AMT repeal at all.
On January 4, 2007, Baucus stated in a speech on the Senate floor, “I am pleased to join with my friend Chuck Grassley and our fellow committee colleagues, Senators Schumer, Kyl and Crapo to introduce legislation today that will repeal the individual AMT.” Baucus, along with five Republican and two Democratic co-sponsors, introduced Senate Bill 55. The bill simply reads, “A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the individual alternative minimum tax.”
Yet on March 23, 2007, Baucus and his Democratic co-sponsors had the opportunity to vote for full AMT repeal and they voted against it. Senator Grassley (R-IA) offered an amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution that stated, “To amend the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008 in order to accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax.” The Grassley Amendment failed and not one Democrat voted yea.
Baucus’s claim that the Senate does not have time to debate full AMT repeal is as disingenuous as his vote on the Grassley Amendment. The ambitious Senate Finance Committee has held hearing on topics including universal health care coverage, Social Security’s administrative costs and issues facing America’s “working families.” As opposed, one presumes, to the despised bourgeoisie.
If Baucus was serious about repealing the AMT he could easily force a committee vote on Senate Bill 55, and place it on the agenda for full Senate debate. That would force all the senators running for president, though, to vote on a significant tax policy change in an election cycle. Asking congressional Democrats to fully repeal a tax is like asking Britney Spears to wear undergarments. The tax code is the liberals’ terrible swift sword used to carve the nation into classes and punish initiative and achievement.
We know from the teachings of our sage liberal leaders that it is not acceptable to be racist, sexist, misogynist, gayist, xenophobist or even capitalist. But classist? Hatred of the achievers and pitting the so-called classes against each other is not only acceptable, but encouraged.
© 2007 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
The AMT should be removed and the drive toward a flat tax should proceed.
Cut spending.
Isn’t there some kind of award for Most Repulsive Headline Destined To Keep Readers Away?
>> Under this tax “reform” charade, liberals plan to further heap the burden of taxation on the income quintile that already pays the majority of income taxes. <<
This line is a wonderful example of the gaping disconnect between Republican rhetoric and the middle-class experience. While the AMT is a dastardly thing, tying it to fix the “injustice” that the quintile that has the most income pays the most income tax is bound to infuriate 79% of voters who aren’t hard-core Republicans. The injustice is that the AMT overrides tax exemptions whose purpose it is to make sure that middle-class people weren’t falsely presumed to have great wealth.
I am assuming this means them too.
Not only that, but the “burden of taxation” should include all taxes - Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, etc - minus all benefits.
When you look at things that way, the highest quintile still pays the most in taxes... but they also earn the most... when you look at their total burden as a % of income, it is the highest.
But not THAT much higher than the next rung down the ladder...
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.