Posted on 06/01/2006 6:58:55 PM PDT by Angel
The AMT is viewed by many as a bad thing. Yet, consider this: There is wide agreement among economists on the benefits of a federal "flat tax" on income that would apply a uniform rate to every taxpayer and eliminate most current deductions and tax credits. A flat tax would get rid of a large number of economic distortions resulting from the many tax "subsidies" that often benefit narrow interest groups. This is tax "pork," and Congress is as addicted to it as to the ordinary spending kind.
snip . . .
If we wait long enough, and with some continuing degree of inflation, the AMT flat tax eventually will apply to most taxpayers. The AMT will, in effect, have become the federal income tax system. And unlike most other important policy changes, this is one in which Congress need do nothing, although at some point it would probably be desirable to modify details of the current AMT that limit its effectiveness as a flat tax.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Congress would meddle before that point arrives. In the eyes of Congress, they derive most of their power from the ability to target specific groups for "reward" or "punishment" through the tax code.
Which is why K street ("lobbying") needs banning.
I think when Pat Buchanan was running for president he was proposing a flat tax around 22%.
I'm all for a FLAT TAX. Been for it for years - Forbes ... but a flat tax of 26-28% - heck might was well NOT change the system. It's way too high. 10-15% would be more reasonable.
Special interests will always find new ways to help their friends on Capitol Hill. Mere laws can't stop it; look at how pathetic campaign finance reform was in practice. In my estimation, the only way to keep specific individuals, groups, businesses, and unions from buying congressmen is to greatly reduce or eliminate the power of congressmen to impact those special interests.
Much of that power to fiddle with specific sectors of the economy seems extra-constitutional to me anyway.
The Altenative Minimum Tax should be abolished immediately. The AMT was placed in the tax code in 1969, based on Congressional testimony that 165 Americans had paid NO federal income tax in 1967. But it was never indexed for inflation. For years the AMT affected less than 1 percent of all taxpayers. In 2005 the AMT effected roughly 3 percent of all taxpayers. Without changes to the tax code the AMT will penalize nearly 20 percent of taxpayers by 2010. Kill it!
increase the house ....1:50,0000 representation =6000 congresscritters. Make the senate appointed by the states legislature as it originally was. Pass term limits , make ALL financial interactions with our public servants transparent at every level...this alone will facilitate term limits. Make all congressional travel and schedules public..ALL meetings which they attend open to public....(obvious national security exceptions!).....just a few ideas!!
So-called 'fair' tax spam to be posted in 5...4...3...2...
Exactly. The income tax is the power to grant favor or to punish.
In other words, the AMT may be the most remarkable tax ever created -- since it applies disproportionately to regions that have historically been among the most liberal parts of the country.
Our current tax code is progressive and complex. The AMT is "flat" (really 3 rates, 0, 26 and 28%), but complex because you have to calculate your regular tax too and because some income is subject to the AMT while others isn't.
Although Steve Forbes pushes the flat tax, his real advantage is simplification, not flatness. You could have a very simple progressive tax - how much did you make and look that up on a chart to find your tax.
The SS tax is near the ideal for simplification because the average tax payer never does anything with it. Only people owning small businesses or people who go over the maximum taxable amount between multiple jobs have to fill out anything for it.
So far I haven't had to deal with the AMT. TurboTax just says that I don't have to pay any additional because of it. I don't know if that is because I am below the exemption limit, or if my AMT is less than I have to pay anyway.
Our current tax code is progressive and complex. The AMT is "flat" (really 3 rates, 0, 26 and 28%), but complex because you have to calculate your regular tax too and because some income is subject to the AMT while others isn't.
Although Steve Forbes pushes the flat tax, his real advantage is simplification, not flatness. You could have a very simple progressive tax - how much did you make and look that up on a chart to find your tax.
The SS tax is near the ideal for simplification because the average tax payer never does anything with it. Only people owning small businesses or people who go over the maximum taxable amount between multiple jobs have to fill out anything for it.
So far I haven't had to deal with the AMT. TurboTax just says that I don't have to pay any additional because of it. I don't know if that is because I am below the exemption limit, or if my AMT is less than I have to pay anyway.
Interesting angle. I had not had the insight before, but the author is right. The only problem is that I oppose the flat tax. High income earners should pay more. I think a top rate of from 35% to 40% is about right. Certain kinds of capital gains should be at a lower rate, but not dividends. JMO.
It applies to states which have high income tax rates. It is a killer in California.
Then I would think California's representatives in Congress -- Democrat and Republican alike -- would be among the strongest supporters of the elimination of the AMT, right?
What is your reasoning that says that high income earners should pay more?
The income tax itself is problematic from a Contitutional standpoint. In essence it makes us ALL slaves and the "progressive" tax is even worse as its premise is simply based on envy.
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and we have given our elected congress critters far too much power in this regard. Government revenue sources need to be neutral in regards to individuals as they provide too many opportunities for targeting groups with either incentives or punishments.
You got it, along with, inter alia, the Empire State. The dislike the idea that the partial federal subsidy of their high taxes is being eroded. I don't favor the deductibility of state and local taxes myself. Cheers.
It is a social justice position. It is a preference. There is no right or wrong answer. It is important however to not let taxes at the margin get too high or it starts interfering with economic incentives to be productive, and starts killing the goose that lays the golden egg, as it were. It is an empirical question as to just how high a rate and where and when that really starts to be a drag.
You should examine your concept of social justice.
A tax that takes from one person to give it to another is stealing, pure and simple. It is as if you are saying that it is okay for you to jump over your fence at night and steal your neighbor's car because he has three and you only have one. Put that way, I hope it sounds ludicrous and that is exactly what a "progressive" tax is.
I understand that many people have a misbegotten notion of social justice unfortunately influenced by envy and Marxist philosophy, but I believe that social justice entails a WILLINGNESS on the part of the giver. Christ did not strip the rich young man of his fine clothes and posessions and give them to the poor, he told the young man to sell all that and give it to the poor. The difference is that it rested upon a free choice of the young man's to come to the aid of his fellow human beings, and social justice requires that we do the same.
Social justice does not require that we take someone's wealth at gunpoint and transfer it to another, no matter the other person's need or our good intentions.
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.