Individual Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal Act

[A18]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1103:

Four Democrats (from Montana, Oregon, New York, and Arkansas), Jim Jeffords of Vermont, and four Republicans are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the individual alternative minimum tax.

[Frodo]

that seems rather extreme -i would rather have it indexed to inflation -as it stands, more and more middle class families like mine are having to pay this tax that was originally designed to make the wealthy pay it.  if this change is made, i would have no complaints about it.   

[A18]

No, it needs to be eradicated completely.

How anyone can take an extremely complicated system of rules, leading to high compliance costs, and say "I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't apply to me, so keep it and make it apply to everyone else," and not see anything wrong about that statement is beyond me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Repealed?  No
Have the minimum income for AMT increased? Yes

[KEmperor]

Wow, good to see Schumer doing something good for once.

[Nation]

Yes, I definitely support this.

[TheresNoMoney]

I support this, it helps make the tax code simpler.

Of course, we will have to make up the lost revenues in some other way.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I support this, it helps make the tax code simpler.

Of course, we will have to make up the lost revenues in some other way.

Not happening from these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

[opebo]

What an unimportant issue.  The details of what exactly high income people are charged in taxes is hardly an emergency, Philip.  You should have such problems.

They're already charged such an absurdly low rate that they certainly shouldn't complain about the AMT, the cheaps.

[Palefire]

Certainly it needs to be changed, at the very least. This tax should not be hitting families making less than 200,000; and most likely shouldn't exist at all.

[TheresNoMoney]

What an unimportant issue.  The details of what exactly high income people are charged in taxes is hardly an emergency, Philip.  You should have such problems.

The thing is, the AMT affects a lot of middle class families with large amounts of children. It hurts the middle class alot because it disallows real estate tax deductions, state tax deductions, medical and dental deductions, and miscellaneous itemized deductions. These are all deductions typically used to help the middle class.

The Form 6251 for the AMT tax is here:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6251.pdf

If not repealed, the AMT tax should at  least be simplified and geared towards not affecting so many middle class families.

[opebo]

What an unimportant issue.  The details of what exactly high income people are charged in taxes is hardly an emergency, Philip.  You should have such problems.

The thing is, the AMT affects a lot of middle class families with large amounts of children. It hurts the middle class alot because it disallows real estate tax deductions, state tax deductions, medical and dental deductions, and miscellaneous itemized deductions. These are all deductions typically used to help the middle class.

The Form 6251 for the AMT tax is here:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6251.pdf

If not repealed, the AMT tax should at  least be simplified and geared towards not affecting so many middle class families.

What is your definition of 'middle class'?  At what income levels is the AMT imposed?

Keep in mind that the median income is about $35,000, and therefore the 'middle class' is the population that makes somewhat above and somewhat below that amount.  People making $75,000-$100,000 per year are very much upper-middle-class.

[Palefire]

Obebo,

When you have two people working in a household, it doesn't take great jobs for them to exceed $100,000 of income, it's very common. If you own a house and have a few kids you plan on putting through college, making fairly close to $100,000 as a family is fairly important in today's America. These folks are certainly middle class, and I wouldn't even consider them upper middle class. And imho, they should not be touched by the AMT.

[Jake]

Ignore opebo. He's so out of touch with reality it's not even funny.

As for this, looks like it's hurting the Kerry states the most, leave it in place.

[opebo]

Obebo,
When you have two people working in a household, it doesn't take great jobs for them to exceed $100,000 of income, it's very common. If you own a house and have a few kids you plan on putting through college, making fairly close to $100,000 as a family is fairly important in today's America. These folks are certainly middle class, and I wouldn't even consider them upper middle class. And imho, they should not be touched by the AMT.

Yes, I'm well aware that the Right's dimunition of wages over the last 20-30 years has forced the single-breadwinner family to become the two-income household out of sheer necessity.  Quite a shame and totally unecessary.

In any case you'll find the median household income for a family of four in the US is about $65,000.  A $100,000 income for a family of four would be somewhat above the median, even verging upon upper-middle-class.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html

[Gabu]

As for this, looks like it's hurting the Kerry states the most, leave it in place.

It actually is good for everyone: Bush supporters can enjoy the fact that it's mostly worst in Kerry states, and Kerry supporters can enjoy the fact that Ohio is in the top 10.

[A18]

Opebo is once again dead wrong, and needs to take a basic economics class before ever talking about these issues again.

The correct way to measure changes in worker pay from one time period to the next is not by looking at wages alone, but by tallying the total compensation per hour: wages AND BENEFITS.

In 1960, 9 percent of worker compensation was in the form of fringe benefits; in 1975, 16 percent; and in 1990, 20 percent.

It is "true" (though extremely misleading) to say that average real wages have "fallen," real compensation has been rising.

The average real wage in 1990 dollars fell from about $11.00 an hour in 1980 to about $10.00 in 1988, a 9 percent decline. But real compensation per hour rose from $15.00 per hour in 1981 to $16.50 an hour in 1988.

So no, two parents aren't working as a result of lower pay. That is more than offset by non-wage benefits.

[opebo]

Opebo is once again dead wrong, and needs to take a basic economics class before ever talking about these issues again.

The correct way to measure changes in worker pay from one time period to the next is not by looking at wages alone, but by tallying the total compensation per hour: wages AND BENEFITS.

In 1960, 9 percent of worker compensation was in the form of fringe benefits; in 1975, 16 percent; and in 1990, 20 percent.

It is "true" (though extremely misleading) to say that average real wages have "fallen," real compensation has been rising.

The average real wage in 1990 dollars fell from about $11.00 an hour in 1980 to about $10.00 in 1988, a 9 percent decline. But real compensation per hour rose from $15.00 per hour in 1981 to $16.50 an hour in 1988.

So no, two parents aren't working as a result of lower pay. That is more than offset by non-wage benefits.

In fact of course, many people do not have employer provided 'benefits' such as health care - and the percentage has been falling:

As you can see, very few of the lower classes have 'benefits' anyway.

Besides, I don't believe the Heritage Foundation propaganda in your post would be found in 'a basic economics class'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, it needs to be eradicated completely.

How anyone can take an extremely complicated system of rules, leading to high compliance costs, and say "I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't apply to me, so keep it and make it apply to everyone else," and not see anything wrong about that statement is beyond me.

The AMT is actially simpler than the regular income tax.  The problem comes from the fact that those subject to it have to calulate their tax both ways.  I say keep the AMT and scrap the regular income tax

[Palefire]

No, it needs to be eradicated completely.

How anyone can take an extremely complicated system of rules, leading to high compliance costs, and say "I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't apply to me, so keep it and make it apply to everyone else," and not see anything wrong about that statement is beyond me.

The AMT is actially simpler than the regular income tax.  The problem comes from the fact that those subject to it have to calulate their tax both ways.  I say keep the AMT and scrap the regular income tax

I say scrap the whole system and start again. A system that only taxes earned income on the top 10%-15% of workers in a graduated manner, taxes unearned income at a flat rate, and a national sales tax might be interesting when combined with a much smaller federal budget.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I say scrap the whole system and start again. A system that only taxes earned income on the top 10%-15% of workers in a graduated manner, taxes unearned income at a flat rate, and a national sales tax might be interesting when combined with a much smaller federal budget.

Let's see that smaller federal budget first please.  The only thing worse than tax and spend Democrats are borrow and spend Republicans.

[Palefire]

I say scrap the whole system and start again. A system that only taxes earned income on the top 10%-15% of workers in a graduated manner, taxes unearned income at a flat rate, and a national sales tax might be interesting when combined with a much smaller federal budget.

Let's see that smaller federal budget first please.  The only thing worse than tax and spend Democrats are borrow and spend Republicans.

I'd agree with both points you make.

[A18]

Opebo is once again dead wrong, and needs to take a basic economics class before ever talking about these issues again.

The correct way to measure changes in worker pay from one time period to the next is not by looking at wages alone, but by tallying the total compensation per hour: wages AND BENEFITS.

In 1960, 9 percent of worker compensation was in the form of fringe benefits; in 1975, 16 percent; and in 1990, 20 percent.

It is "true" (though extremely misleading) to say that average real wages have "fallen," real compensation has been rising.

The average real wage in 1990 dollars fell from about $11.00 an hour in 1980 to about $10.00 in 1988, a 9 percent decline. But real compensation per hour rose from $15.00 per hour in 1981 to $16.50 an hour in 1988.

So no, two parents aren't working as a result of lower pay. That is more than offset by non-wage benefits.

In fact of course, many people do not have employer provided 'benefits' such as health care - and the percentage has been falling:

As you can see, very few of the lower classes have 'benefits' anyway.

Besides, I don't believe the Heritage Foundation propaganda in your post would be found in 'a basic economics class'.

Your chart covers only three years, and only health care. Your post was a repeat of what you've said several times: real wages fell because of Republican economics, as practiced in the 1980s. In fact, I already showed you that real pay went up.

None of this is from the Heritage Foundation, and all of it is very basic.

[A18]

Deficits are the best way to get Congress to stop spending so much money. The problem is that we don't have a balanced budget amendment.

The AMT is actially simpler than the regular income tax.  The problem comes from the fact that those subject to it have to calulate their tax both ways.  I say keep the AMT and scrap the regular income tax

That isn't being proposed, and we're already going to overhaul the regular income tax, probably with some kind of flat tax with a generous exemption.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Deficits are the best way to get Congress to stop spending so much money. The problem is that we don't have a balanced budget amendment.

The AMT is actually simpler than the regular income tax.  The problem comes from the fact that those subject to it have to calulate their tax both ways.  I say keep the AMT and scrap the regular income tax

That isn't being proposed, and we're already going to overhaul the regular income tax, probably with some kind of flat tax with a generous exemption.

That's one of the best laughs I've had for a while.  The last thing politicans and lobbyists want is a simple tax code, so while they may talk about it, I doubt if we'll ever see it.