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 ...
WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG.
Please support freedom. Please support the fair tax.
There. I fixed it.
It's frank Communism.........not mere liberalism.
Let's get that rich guy!! How dare make more money than me. HOW DARE HIM!
HOW DARE HE WORK HARDER, LONGER, GET A HIGHER EDUCATION, BE AN ENTREPRENEUR, TAKE MORE RISKS!!! HOW DARE HIM/HER.
HE DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED/PENALIZED AT A HIGHER RATE! MUCH HIGHER RATE.
Blue states aren't entirely blue. The blue voters are the ones that will never be hit by the AMT. It is the red voters in blue states, struggling to hold on under high living costs without any government "assistance" that get hit hardest by the AMT.
We're already getting screwed by the state's own high tax rates to support the local welfare projects, and the AMT comes along and limits our deductions ?
How about this alternative ? Let's progressively REWARD extra effort rather than penalize it.
A highly REGRESSIVE income tax would reward people for extra effort/education/risk.
20% up to national median income
15% from median up to twice median
10% from twice up to five times median
5% on amounts above five times the median
Zero deductions. Only individuals taxed, not businesses.
I've argued for this for YEARS. What better way to incentivize people to perform than by effectively raising their hourly wage????? Don't expect government to hit on this idea. It makes far too much sense to be within their realm of thought.
Let's also keep in mind the effect of government-provided goods and services on the cost of those services.
When you break the link between the decision to want something, and the responsibilty to pay for it, you've triggered a runaway price escalation.
Big-government provides the illusion that something costs less than it really does, which drives up demand and prices for that good or service.
I lay most of the cost increases in our healthcare system at the feet of Medicare and Medicaid, and soon the new Presciption Drug Benefit program will just make it worse. When the recipient only sees 10% of any cost increase, additional demand and cost increases are guaranteed.
Government should be limited to providing only those services that make no sense for an individual to purchase directly for themselves. Like Defense, Judiciary, Penal system, etc. Even Roads would be less expensive if they were all paid via tolls rather than taxes.
It is incredible that you are PUNISHED for working overtime, working on holidays, working extra days, improving your skills, getting a higher education, taking more risks in the business world, working smarter/productively--with a HIGHER TAX rate!
Social justice? Give me a break.
I call it jealousy, envy, class warfare, whining, and entrepreneurial/work ethic INJUSTICE.
How DARE you make more money than I do! It's just NOT FAIR. (s/off)
I take it that you are not in favor of the progressive income tax. You want me to get a big tax cut. So be it.
There is some truth in what you say, although it is most pronounced in the higher education industry. In medicine, PPO's and HMO's do quite a bit of price maintenance. The real problem in medicine, is that much of the new fancy stuff is very expensive. Miracle drugs cost a lot to invent, particularly since most of the drugs experimented with don't make it to the finish line. There is no free lunch.
You're very perceptive....lol
You bet I'd like you to get a big tax cut. Then if your conscience bothers you that much,,,,you could send in an extra amount to the IRS in the name of 'social justice'!
P.S. The ultimate irony is that after fighting the Soviet Union's communist system for almost a half a century,,,,they now have a 13% flat tax,,,and WE have the socialist (progressive) tax system. Amazing, absolutely amazing.
I have heard that line before. I will hear it again. Of course it is silly, because I want company in my cohort when I cut the big check to the IRS, a lot of company. No man is an island. It takes a village. :)
Knock yourself out. But don't PICK MY POCKET in the name of 'social justice',,,or anyone's elses, for that matter.
OK. The problem is that you think taxation is "theft" I suspect, and I don't. Such is life.
The only theft (to use your words) is the theft of incentive. I guess that rewarding those (who would NOT improve themselves with higher education, seeking a promotion, working extra, etc) with a LOWER TAX rate is the way to go! (rolling eyes)
P.S. You'd fit right in on the DU.
If you confuse this on first read with "ATM" rather than "AMT" you get quite a different meaning. LOL!
OK, fair enough, except the gratuitous DU comment. I would be bounced there in a heart beat. That little dig is also unoriginal, and tiresome.
That's a circular argument. Drug companies pursue drugs long after they should give up because the demand is high. When people only pay 10% of what a new drug costs, people demand it hoping it will be 'the' cure for what ails them.
If they paid it all out of their own pocket, the demand for existing drugs would fall, and drug companies would be chasing fewer miracle cures.
We might end up with fewer drugs, but I doubt it. I think they'd just cut their losses quicker on the drugs that weren't going to pan out anyway.
That's an interesting argument, that drug companies spend lots for the hail mary pass, and if they didn't, we would not lose much, and we would still get most of the drug winners, at far lower cost. But it would require knowing what the actual numbers are. Numbers are king on this one. Speculation is fun, but to get beyond that, one needs real numbers.
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.