Alternative Minimum Tax

That is why the government needs to have the least amount of power possible. Everything they do gets screwed up, but for some reason people want to give them more power and control.

I hear ya brother.

To those who want to scrap AMT altogether I say you don't know WTF you're talking about. Does the law need to be updated? Absolutely! Are the principles behind the law just? Jesus would find it just!

There are so many schemes available to rich people to lower their tax rate it's insane. Take Warren Buffet for example who end up with a 17.7% tax bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html). There's a reason behind AMT and that is to stop people with money from gaming the system by paying themselves $1 in annual salary, making the rest of their income through incentive based options and investments, and ultimately ends up paying 15% capital gains tax on all of their income.

making 75k in a household in fairfax country is barely enough to pay a mortgage. without Cost of Living adjustments, 75k is an awful low household number...

btw, how about killing corn subsidies first. they tried about a month ago (or less) and instead of the original "if you earn more than 500k total income, you get no government money" turned into 5mill total income (which is a big enough sum to make it easy to spread around with kickbacks and defeat entirely)...

i mean, i'm a nice guy, but f'ing letterman shouldn't be getting 270k a year from (me, you, etc through) the government. those farm subsidies where supposed to protect joe average farmer from losing the ranch, not as a tax shelter for the rich and corporate (and already profitable) farmers.

To those who want to scrap AMT altogether I say you don't know WTF you're talking about. Does the law need to be updated? Absolutely! Are the principles behind the law just? Jesus would find it just!

There are so many schemes available to rich people to lower their tax rate it's insane. Take Warren Buffet for example who end up with a 17.7% tax bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html). There's a reason behind AMT and that is to stop people with money from gaming the system by paying themselves $1 in annual salary, making the rest of their income through incentive based options and investments, and ultimately ends up paying 15% capital gains tax on all of their income.

Nobody's arguing the principle, saden. They're criticizing the execution.

Making sure everyone pays their fair share of tax makes all the sense in the world. Failing to adjust the threshold for inflation, however, is nothing short of f*cking retarded. Good idea, but as usual, f*cked up by the geniuses within the US government.

Getting rid of the AMT would be more fair than keeping it as-is. As it stands now, it's one of the great tax injustices of all-time. Ideally, they'd keep the AMT (because it's a decent idea) but simply adjust the threshold up. It'd be pretty easy - go back to the year the threshold was set, multiply it by the CPI for every year until 2008, bringing it up into the $200-300K range. Then index it to inflation moving forward.

You should look into the program rather than use the beat-up truck, red-neck generalization. The Fair Tax is designed to put the money of the American people back in their pockets and take the power away from Washington. Imagine getting your whole paycheck back rather than the reduced amount from taxes taken out. That paycheck you earned is yours, not the government's. In the Fair Tax program there are also "pre-bate" checks sent out to families to cover the taxes that would be paid on basic necessities.

The Fair Tax also effectively taxes the underground economy of illegal activities and illegal immigrants.

The payroll tax is actually a regressive tax. The Fair Tax is not. Check out the link for an explanation.

Americans For Fair Taxation: (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_fairtax_four#regressive)

Why would I go to an advocacy group to find out information about a program? Admittedly, I spoke without a detailed knowledge of to proposal (partially because it is more complicated than advocates would admit), but if I am going to go look for information I'd rather go someplace like this:

FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax (http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html)

Sorry for breaking into the AMT discussion, but I find it frustrating when highly partisan information is presented as simply "the facts". It actually does matter where you get your information from and when I see code words like "socialized medicine" and "fair taxation" I become pretty skeptical of the source of information. You should too.

Why would I go to an advocacy group to find out information about a program? Admittedly, I spoke without a detailed knowledge of to proposal (partially because it is more complicated than advocates would admit), but if I am going to go look for information I'd rather go someplace like this:

FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax (http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html)

Sorry for breaking into the AMT discussion, but I find it frustrating when highly partisan information is presented as simply "the facts". It actually does matter where you get your information from and when I see code words like "socialized medicine" and "fair taxation" I become pretty skeptical of the source of information. You should too.

This is just a post in a show of support for what SC Skins Fan is saying. Media bias is prevalent even in the major networks, who employ journalists who pledge to report the facts and remain neutral. Political bias still manages to creep into their reporting.

Interpreting bias and identifying each source's slant is critical to obtaining reliable information. In this age when anyone can post anything on the internet, interpreting this bias is critical when searching the web for information.

In the end, if you link to or reference biased information, it's your credibility that ultimately suffers.

FactCheck is an excellent, unbiased source of information.

My Bad.

Nobody's arguing the principle, saden. They're criticizing the execution.

Making sure everyone pays their fair share of tax makes all the sense in the world. Failing to adjust the threshold for inflation, however, is nothing short of f*cking retarded. Good idea, but as usual, f*cked up by the geniuses within the US government.

Getting rid of the AMT would be more fair than keeping it as-is. As it stands now, it's one of the great tax injustices of all-time. Ideally, they'd keep the AMT (because it's a decent idea) but simply adjust the threshold up. It'd be pretty easy - go back to the year the threshold was set, multiply it by the CPI for every year until 2008, bringing it up into the $200-300K range. Then index it to inflation moving forward.
Ok you say everyone should pay their fair shair but its retarded to have a AMT for lower income people. Is that wanting it both ways. Maybe it just seems OK to hit people making more because they have more but why is it a good idea for one group of people and not the other?

Ok you say everyone should pay their fair shair but its retarded to have a AMT for lower income people. Is that wanting it both ways. Maybe it just seems OK to hit people making more because they have more but why is it a good idea for one group of people and not the other?

As to the question why should the rich pay more taxes? Their are two reasons:

1) As others have pointed out, the greater your wealth - the greater your level of disposal income. A loaf of bread and a gallon of gas cost the same whether you make 30,000 or 300,000. A family of four can get by okay on 50,000 but every penny counts and 10% of their income will affect their ability to afford much more beyond the basics. A family of four can live in moderate luxury on 500,000. While they will not be able to afford all the luxuries they might if they pay 20% of their income in taxes - would anyone suggest that a family of four could not live very very well on an income of 400,000?

2) More importantly, the richer you are the more you have benefitted from the governmental infrastructure supported by the taxes. My ability to collect wealth is directly related to the stable economy, the transportation infrastructure, the regulation of commerce and the enforcement of the criminal code by the various governmental entities in the US. It seems self evident to me that those who profit the most from the structures and institutions created and sustained by government should be pay a higher percentage of their income.

It is, of course a balancing act. Destroying the incentive to be wealthy will destroy the tax base. i.e. for all our benefit, people most be allowed to be wealthy.

Ok you say everyone should pay their fair shair but its retarded to have a AMT for lower income people. Is that wanting it both ways. Maybe it just seems OK to hit people making more because they have more but why is it a good idea for one group of people and not the other?

Your posts almost always confuse me. I can never quite tell what you're trying to say/ask.

Perhaps you just don't understand what the AMT is. By definition, AMT was designed to target the affluent, not the upper middle class, not the middle class, and not the poor. It was designed to ensure the rich could not take advantage of deductions and shelters to avoid paying their fair share.

If you're questioning what "fair share" is, then you seem to be arguing for a flat tax, which JR just addressed. That's an entirely different discussion.