AMT repeal?

[BHoffman]

Looks like the Senate "Gang of Six" is finding broad bipartisan support for raising the debt limit, and repeal of the alternative minimum tax is a big part of it.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, seen as the go-to guy for the TEA party in regard to taxes, has opined that this would work:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/budget/the-norquist-approved-tax-deal-that-s-not-in-the-debt-talks-yet-20110714

The AMT repeal is estimated to save taxpayers $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

I'm curious as to whether the estimated $1.5 trillion takes into consideration the annual AMT "fix" performed by Congress every year?

[Dusty2004]

Do I have this right

Looks like the Senate "Gang of Six" is finding broad bipartisan support for raising the debt limit, and repeal of the alternative minimum tax is a big part of it.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, seen as the go-to guy for the TEA party in regard to taxes, has opined that this would work:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/budget/the-norquist-approved-tax-deal-that-s-not-in-the-debt-talks-yet-20110714

The AMT repeal is estimated to save taxpayers $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

I'm curious as to whether the estimated $1.5 trillion takes into consideration the annual AMT "fix" performed by Congress every year?

We are looking to close the gap on spending versus revenue so we are going to lower revenue. Make sense to me!

Dusty

[BHoffman]

Lower taxes rates = More tax revenue FACT

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578785/201107191849/How-Even-Scholars-Misread-90-Years-Of-Tax-Cut-History.htm

[BHoffman]

Me and my mouse

We are looking to close the gap on spending versus revenue so we are going to lower revenue. Make sense to me!

Dusty

Dusty, perhaps you have a mouse in your pocket when you refer to "we".

Me and my mouse are looking to decrease government spending. Mouse and I both believe that raising taxes in a recession is going to result in a longer period of economic pain for the general population. We believe the government is in a far better position to bear that pain than we are since they waste at least as much as any gap would show. We have to give up our homes. The government would be giving up their lattes. What is more fair?

Mouse and I think raising taxes on "the rich" (anyone making over $200k MFS or $250k MFJ), the New Math billionaires and millionaires, is going to result in long-term trickle down poverty.

We also think the estimate of eliminating the AMT is vastly overstated because the CBO score does not take into account the annual Congressional "fix". Without the fix, approx $1.6 trillion. With the fix factored in, looks like approx $600 bllion.

[newbie]

One can only hope it trickles down cause it seems the breaks are going to the top.

The gang of six plan would simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax brackets from six to three, lowering the top rate from 35 percent to somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent. That could provide a windfall for wealthy taxpayers because the 35 percent tax bracket currently applies to taxable income above $379,150.

To help pay for lower rates, the plan would reduce popular tax breaks for mortgage interest, health insurance, charitable giving and retirement savings. Other tax breaks would be spared, including the $1,000-per-child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which helps the working poor stay out of poverty.

[Gary2]

I've long thought that AMT is actually a much simpler system -- not because it has fewer brackets, but because it has fewer deductions, credits, depreciation options, etc. What makes AMT complicated is that it's spliced on top of a separate tax system, forcing work to be duplicated and making it more difficult to anticipate the effects of changes to a tax situation. But I don't suppose there's any support for doing away with the primary tax system and keeping just AMT (with automatic inflation indexing of the exemption amounts).

[taxxcpa]

Raising taxes

My opinion is that we should cut out all deductions and credits other than expenses connected to producing income. Partly this could be offset by increasing the standard deduction and the deduction for exemptions. There should then, also, be a reduction of rates.
Some additional revenue that might result as a result of the elimination of credits would be OK with me, at least on a temporary basis.

The main long-range thing should be a drastic cut in spending on welfare, foreign aid, and wars to achieve a balanced budget. In good times there should be a budget surplus which could be used as a fund for bad times, but deficit spending based on borrowing money should be eliminated as soon as possible.

Of course this would make tax return so simple a cave man could do it and I would be out of business.

[ttbtaxes]

Tinker with the mortgage interest and property tax deductions and watch the chilling effect it will have on a real estate market already in the tank.

[taxea]

Tinker with the mortgage interest and property tax deductions and watch the chilling effect it will have on a real estate market already in the tank.

Even better if the public blames Obama for signing it into law. I will believe it all when it is law, before then it is just a waste of time worrying about or fussing over.

[Black Bart]

Tax breaks and tax-breaking

To help pay for lower rates, the plan would reduce popular tax breaks for mortgage interest, health insurance, charitable giving and retirement savings.

Good grief! These are the only decent breaks that keep my tax-paying middle-class clientele goin'. And ttbtaxes is right about this finishing off the housing market.

Other tax breaks would be spared, including the $1,000-per-child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which helps the working poor stay out of poverty.

The $1K CTC gives my not-so-old middle-classers some relief, but EITC is no help to 'em. Meanwhile (to be class-nasty about it), those working poor are paying zero income tax and getting out of poverty fast. Checking the tables, max EITC is $5,666 + $3K refundable CTC on $12-21K income. $8600 ain't hay and my couples earning $50-75K are green with envy wondering why they get a $4-8K tax bill for getting ahead while the "noble poor" get $8K cash for getting pregnant. I mean, I know people need help, but isn't $8K a bit much? I thought it was getting out hand when it hit $4K, but little did I know...

It seems to me like there just isn't that much tax being paid in anymore, especially compared to the amounts being paid out in refunds. Anybody else agree?

[Burke]

It seems to me like there just isn't that much tax being paid in anymore, especially compared to the amounts being paid out in refunds. Anybody else agree?

I think you meant refundable credits, but yes, I agree overall. Although I don't do a lot of EIC's.

[joanmcq]

Methinks the tax cuts mostly the rich have received over the last 12 years has resulted in trickle up wealth gain, and trickle down poverty for the rest of us, especially the middle class.

The EITC was originally put into place to refund some of the payroll taxes the working poor pay. If you have no kids and make very little, it still serves this purpose. Tacking on the welfare payments to those with kids was a big mistake. Even though it did help one of my tenants catch up on the rent, and thus it 'trickled up' to me (and he was behind due to a set of really unfortunate circumstances including being laid off due to weather and then suffering an injury which left him unable to work for awhile).

Let's face it; the tax cuts did not raise all boats, it just raised the yachts of those at the very top, and left the nation farther in debt.