Politics and AMT

[Black Bart]

Some excerpts from my Arkansas trade pub:

If the AMT was meant to tax only a few of the very rich, why doesn't Congress just index it to inflation as the regular tax computation is indexed? While no Congressional leader publicly supports the AMT, Congress clearly doesn't want to lose the revenue it produces. Plus, the AMT enables Congress to take credit for passing tax cuts that appear much larger than they really are, because the AMT takes back much of their value in a way most people don't realize...Major tax cuts such as lowering of top bracket rates and the cut to 15% on capital gains and dividends...can lose much of their value to AMT...many smaller cuts...new tax credit for hybrid cars aren't allowed under AMT at all.

The presidential Tax Reform Commission officially recommended repealing the AMT but Congress has taken no steps in this direction...recently passing only a stop-gap measure to temporarily prevent more people from being caught in the net...

[OldJack]

The old slight of hand move (give it to you in one hand and take it back in the other) has been around much longer than I have. And, its such a popular thing with government that it is bound to last as long as the majority of the common folk public believe in the democrat party philosophy (tax the rich and give what the gov doesn't want to the poor).

[jainen]

efforts to reform it

>>the democrat party philosophy <<

Can't see how the democrat party philosophy plays in this. AMT got it's start in the Nixon era because 155 rich folks paid no tax at all, and the Republicans wanted to stop criticism without actually eliminating their favorite tax breaks. It remained a great symbol for more than 30 years, but during the current Republican administration it has tripled the number of taxpayers it affects. And it is the current Republican administration that has beat back the efforts to reform it.

[veritas]

I know people like to hold up President Nixon as a republican but we know he was a Liberal Democrat in my opinion. Revenue sharing and oh let's not forget price controls. As I recall when he first began his political career he ran as a democrat and a republican just to make sure he had all his bases covered.

[OldJack]

True regarding the AMT beginning... but I was talking about the social philosophy of taxing one person and giving the money to another. Maybe I should have referred to it as taxes to fund our welfare system.

Truth is why should you pay more tax than me just because you were smarter and worked harder than I and made more money?

[jainen]

Thank you

Thank you for the compliments! Maybe I am smarter and work harder, although I truly doubt that I make more money.

You support our Constitution, I suppose? One of the main purposes stated in the Constitution is to "promote the general welfare." We do that mostly with insurance and loans to individuals, and subsidies, grants, and contracts to corporations.

[sea-tax]

What really irks me with the Democratic Party Philosophy is the attitude that they know what's best for you. Look I live in washington state one of the most left leaning states in the country. it sickens me but I was born here and have trouble gathering the courge to leave. Here if you are a republican you are definately in the minority. Prime example the democrats tried to pass a law a couple years back to tax lattes to fund daycares for single mothers with children. Paaaaalease!

Old Jack I agree just because somebody works harder and smarter and makes more money they should not have to feel guilty or be taxed any more or less than anyone else.

[OldJack]

Jainen, where does it explain that "promote the general welfare" means take the money from one citizen and give it to another because the other is not willing to work? That is not promote the general welfare rather individual welfare that charity organizations use to provide until the Roosevelt democrat government decided it should do it. Not that I would be against helping people in a situation like the 1930's depreciation or the truly Katrina victims but there should be an "end" at some point to any welfare program.

How do you like the current news about the 1 billion Katrina money scandal? OK.. the republicans are responsible for that but how did we get to a point that so many citizens think they should rip off our government?

[jainen]

honest debate

>>OK.. the republicans are responsible for that but how did we get to a point that so many citizens think they should rip off our government?<<

As you say, when we allowed the Republicans to take over all three branches of government, we gave up on the idea of "general welfare" and replaced it with an "I'll get mine" attitude. It's not the only constitutional principal that's been blasted in the last five years.

I never was a Republican (here in Santa Cruz even the Democrats are considered too fanatically right-wing for most people), but if I were I would certainly question the way party leaders have strayed from the traditional beliefs of small government and individual opportunity. Did you see the post by veritas this morning, saying Richard Nixon was a liberal Democrat? Not much room there for a difference of opinion and honest debate.

[OldJack]

<< I never was a Republican (here in Santa Cruz even the Democrats are considered too fanatically right-wing for most people), but if I were I would certainly question the way party leaders have strayed from the traditional beliefs of small government and individual opportunity.>>

That is exactly why the conservative republicans are not supporting everything the compromising President is proposing lately. Don't get me wrong he is my president and I would vote for him again.

Richard Nixon only won election because the public thought he would end the war, not because of his domestic policies.

What happened to the democrat "Ask not what your country can do for you..ask what you can do for your country". I don't think it was the republicans that thru that in the trash can.

[jainen]

a cheap shot

>>What happened to the democrat "Ask not what your country can do for you..ask what you can do for your country". I don't think it was the republicans that thru that in the trash can<<

You are right--that was never a Republican slogan!

Sorry, I just could not resist such a cheap shot.

I'm sure we can agree that Kennedy and Nixon are not the issues in 2006, and we aren't trying to end the Vietnam War. In a way we are all at fault for allowing Washington to become a world of personality cults instead of a genuine democracy of various policy decisions. Many Democrats are pretty upset with party "leadership," as are many Republicans.

[OldJack]

<< In a way we are all at fault for allowing Washington to become a world of personality cults instead of a genuine democracy of various policy decisions. Many Democrats are pretty upset with party "leadership," as are many Republicans. >>

No one could disagree with that.

[Black Bart]

Fellows, fellows!

jainen

I never was a Republican (here in Santa Cruz even the Democrats are considered too fanatically right-wing for most people), but if I were I would certainly question the way party leaders have strayed from the traditional beliefs of small government and individual opportunity. Did you see the post by veritas this morning, saying Richard Nixon was a liberal Democrat? Not much room there for a difference of opinion and honest debate.

It's not even the weekend yet and you're arguing politics. Unregistered is gonna complain about this for sure.

jainen: Am I reading that right about the "fanatically right-wing" Democrats? I disagree with Vertias (not so bluntly as you do) about his characterization of Richard Nixon as a liberal Democrat, but isn't your statement regarding the Dems exaggerated to about the same extent too? Or are you serious--meaning that they're so uber-liberal that an ordinary Dem pales by comparison?

By the way, I liked Nixon as an "elder statesman" in his twilight years, much more so than Carter is now. I thought he was one of the greatest foreign policy men we've ever had, although as OldJack said, he wasn't much domestically. Most of his speeches were leaden clunkers, but I kinda liked his "farewell" speech in '74 (although I'll bet y'all in California heard that "poorest lemon ranch in California" story a hundred times).

[OldJack]

So whats your point Black Bart? Are you for it or against it? Don't beat around the Bush tell us like it is.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Black Bart]It's not even the weekend yet and you're arguing politics. Unregistered is gonna complain about this for sure.

I'd like to register a complaint....