Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Slow to Adjust Alternative Minimum Tax
Fox News ^ | December 06, 2005 | Associated Press

Posted on 12/06/2005 8:11:00 AM PST by george76

More than 17 million individuals and families could start the new year facing higher taxes because of a provision unfamiliar to most taxpayers -- the alternative minimum tax.

The new year means the expiration of a temporary fix that prevents the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions of people this year on taxes due next April.

But if Congress doesn't act, the additional tax will return for the 2006 tax year.

Originally designed to make sure wealthy individuals paid some tax, the alternative minimum tax reaches further into the middle class every year as inflation pushes more and more people into its grasp.

Congress regularly erects temporary dams to prevent the tax from trapping the middle class, and lawmakers are making a last-minute effort to keep that dam in place next year.

without any congressional action, the alternative minimum tax will hit 19 million taxpayers next year,...

That would include almost three out of four married, two-child couples whose incomes fall roughly between $75,000 and $100,000...

"It's a horrible tax. It's economically inefficient, it's unfair and it's mind-bogglingly complex. ...

unnecessarily complicated, unfair and unpredictable...

"The alternative minimum tax is a vivid example of why our tax code is dysfunctional," ...

the alternative minimum tax could impose a tax increase as large as $3,640 on some families next year.

Many common deductions don't count under the alternative minimum tax, including those for state and local income, property and sales taxes, and couples face a steep marriage penalty.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 109th; bush; bush43; charlesrossotti; clinton; delay; dhpl; hightaxes; hillary; irs; judicialwatch; klayman; larryklayman; murtha; rossotti; taxes

1 posted on 12/06/2005 8:11:01 AM PST by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76
Could have shortened the headline to "Congress Slow" and covered pretty much everything.
2 posted on 12/06/2005 8:13:42 AM PST by TChris ("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Slow to act is the understatement of the year! This law was enacted in 1969 to "punish" 21 millionaires who, in 1967, avoided paying any tax by using deductions enacted by the same "Congress" according to the 12/5/05 Wall Street Journal. Now, however, congresscritters from those northeastern blue states are getting hammered by liberal zillionaires to eliminate the AMT.

Which party was in charge from 1969 to 1994 and exactly who was "slow" to adjust the AMT?

3 posted on 12/06/2005 8:21:01 AM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george76
I'm certainly no fan of taxes in any form, but I have an issue w/ people crying about the AMT.

Their basic gripe is that they are shocked to find out they can't take as many deductions as they thought they could.

As far as I'm concerned, taxes should be uniformly lower across the board. This whole business of singling out specific groups or activities and granting them special benefits through tax deductions is systematically unfair from the get go.
4 posted on 12/06/2005 8:38:18 AM PST by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
Their basic gripe is that they are shocked to find out they can't take as many deductions as they thought they could.

I was put into the AMT last year when my sixth child was born.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong for your taxes to go UP because you have a child.

5 posted on 12/06/2005 8:40:43 AM PST by Jim Noble (Non, je ne regrette rien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

"It is wrong, wrong, wrong for your taxes to go UP because you have a child."

Well, that's one way to look at it.

Another way is this: Why should everyone else pay more to subsidize your additional child? Is that really the responsibility of someone with no children, or few children?


6 posted on 12/06/2005 8:50:59 AM PST by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
Why should everyone else pay more to subsidize your additional child?

In what way do you, or anyone else, pay to subsidize my child?

The law permits (trivial) deductions to offset the cost of raising children - if you think that law should be repealed, fine.

But don't turn it into a law to punish having children.

7 posted on 12/06/2005 8:53:34 AM PST by Jim Noble (Non, je ne regrette rien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TChris

Here's an idea: just eliminate the damn thing.


8 posted on 12/06/2005 8:54:13 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

"In what way do you, or anyone else, pay to subsidize my child?"

By paying a higher ACTUAL tax rate than you do. Do the math. I don't get tons of deductions from my normal rate for kids, etc...

"But don't turn it into a law to punish having children."

So not getting a additional deduction for something is "punishment"? No one is stopping you from having as many kids as you want and can afford. I just don't want to pay for it.


9 posted on 12/06/2005 9:13:20 AM PST by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
Their basic gripe is that they are shocked to find out they can't take as many deductions as they thought they could.


The problem is that the AMT targets those that are not necessarily the target of the AMT. It does not have the desired effect of taxing the Fat Cats that the law was created to tax.

Through inaction, what would have been a small problem to fix is now one hugh problem aimed directly at the middle class.
10 posted on 12/06/2005 9:14:02 AM PST by P-40 (http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

When people who live in 1200 square foot houses and drive average cars have to do AMT, there is something fundamentally wrong with the concept.


11 posted on 12/06/2005 10:00:50 AM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P-40

The really wealthy like Terese Heinz Kerry hire a tax attorney (or several) to find the loopholes in foreign banks (to pay no taxes to America) or buy tax free muni bonds.

The AMT does not impact them much.

The raising of the theshold of the AMT impacts middle class working families.

Because the tax can only be determined by professionals with special software, it is expensive just to do the math. The extra $1000 that went to the CPA could have been spent on family health care, education, etc.

There are many other negative problems with AMT.


12 posted on 12/06/2005 10:08:05 AM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
Why should everyone else pay more to subsidize your additional child? Is that really the responsibility of someone with no children, or few children?

Yes. Supporting children and the parents who raise them is in the interest of society. Just ask Italy and other dying European countries where the Muslims are the only ones having babies.

13 posted on 12/06/2005 10:13:34 AM PST by JohnnyZ (Veterans' Day. Enough said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: george76
Enough is enough. Stop beating a dead horse (i.e., the tax code). Theres only one way and that's;

SCRAP THE CODE, ABOLISH THE I.R.S.

14 posted on 12/06/2005 10:24:27 AM PST by Mikey (Freedom isn't free, but slavery is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble; Pessimist

Federal and state governments are both spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on what passes for education. That is a major way in which people who have few or no children are subsidizing those who have more children. On top of that, the federal government has rigged the corporate tax code in such a way that companies are financially incentivized to subsidize health insurance for employees and their families (and some states mandate and/or financially incentivize even more in this area than the federal government). So people with children get health insurance subsidized by people who don't (and people with many are subsidized by those who have fewer), because every dollar a company spends on health insurance is a dolalr they don't spend on other forms of compensation, like paychecks and 401k matching.

Many people (especially those not willing to dump their children into the government indoctrination centers) delay and/or limit childbearing, because their financial progress is slowed by having to help pay for other people's children.


15 posted on 12/06/2005 10:27:10 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ; Pessimist

No, having "society" raise children is not in anyone's best interests. People should have children when they can afford to raise them themselves, and not one day sooner. Europe is a mess because practically everybody there thinks the government should manage and fund everything. The immigration policies and hand-out programs of European countries which are overrun with Arab immigrants, were not implemented by governments elected by people who take care of themselves. They were implemented by governments elected by people who trust the government to handle everything, and heavy government subsidy of all childrearing expenses is a big part of what they think it's appropriate for government to be in charge of.


16 posted on 12/06/2005 10:33:20 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

In place of paying x amount of taxes to pay for the common defense and general welfare, parents make a non-monetary contribution to the general welfare of much greater value by bearing and raising children.


17 posted on 12/06/2005 10:36:45 AM PST by JohnnyZ (Veterans' Day. Enough said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD

There was always something fundamentally wrong with the concept. Aside from disproportionately penalizing success and productivity, it has never taken into account the huge cost of living discrepancies between different parts of the country. A family of four with $200,000 annual income, living in rural Iowa is living in great luxury -- big house on a big lot, multiple cars, private schools if they want them, plenty of extra cash for vacations, whole new wardrobes every season, and all the latest epectronic gadgets. A family of four with $200,000 annual income, living in Manhattan or many parts of California, is barely getting by -- with the extra heavy state and local income taxes, and sales taxes, half the income is gone from the get-go, renting or buying a very modest 3 bedroom apartment will swallow up about half of post-tax income, parking spaces rent for $300/month and up, so no way to afford more than one car (and in Manhattan many families in the $200,000+ income range have no car at all), and private schools for the kids would run around $25,000/year per child, so totally out of the question (and the public schools in those areas tend to be really hellish).


18 posted on 12/06/2005 10:44:35 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
you mean by raising children socialists
19 posted on 12/06/2005 10:45:56 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ; GovernmentShrinker

"Yes. Supporting children and the parents who raise them is in the interest of society. Just ask Italy and other dying European countries where the Muslims are the only ones having babies."

Well, if the American people having babies raise them in with mommy and daddy's beliefs that they are entitled to special treatment at other's expense, then as far as I'm concerned they can just keep their legs crossed.


20 posted on 12/06/2005 10:55:20 AM PST by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
A family of four with $200,000 annual income, living in Manhattan or many parts of California, is barely getting by

You clearly live in a fantasy world.

21 posted on 12/06/2005 10:56:36 AM PST by JohnnyZ (Veterans' Day. Enough said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

Certainly there are families in those areas living on much less, but they generally live in extremely cramped quarters in dangerous neighborhoods (with rent controlled apartments subsidized by higher income people), send their children to dangerous public schools where little real education goes on, and can only dream of such luxuries as owning (or even renting) a few square feet of land where they could plant a few flowers. To take an example of a working class couple I know who lived in Brooklyn (cheaper than Manhattan): about 10 years ago (so factor inflation into this) I happened to know what both of them earned, he's a trash collector and then made about $60K, she's a secretary and then made about 75K. They live in a rented 2-bedroom apartment which is one floor of a 3 floor/3 family house, have one not-too-recent car, and their son attends public school. That's the lifestyle about$160-170K would buy now. No, they're not starving, but they're not living nearly as well as a family of three could live on $40,000 in most parts of the country -- and they're in alternative minimum tax income range.


22 posted on 12/06/2005 11:47:33 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: george76
The following is from; News Max.com

#4 IRS Engaging in Massive Crackdown -- Now Collecting Your Credit Card Records and Worse

If you thought the IRS might be neutered with the Clintons out, think again.

Already Judicial Watch's Larry Klayman has issued statement after statement criticizing the Bush Administration for not replacing Clinton-appointed IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti.

Rossotti's IRS, under direction from the Clinton White House, engaged in IRS audits of every major conservative group that criticized Bill Clinton. Judicial Watch is also under an IRS audit.

But new actions show the IRS is completely out of control.

Commissioner Rossotti is increasing IRS audits of U.S. citizens by instituting his "National Research Program."

The program kicks out any taxpayer's filing if the figure in a single line of their return is above the average for Americans. One report suggests the new system will increase audits by 25% or more.

The IRS is also becoming a global police agency.

It has demanded -- and received -- more than 1.7 million cardholder records from American Express and Mastercard.

They are combing the records of U.S. citizens who have cards affiliated with offshore banks. Recently, the IRS asked Visa to turn over their records. [Note: It is not illegal for U.S. citizens to have an offshore credit card.]

If you thought these items were bad, consider how the IRS is interpreting the US Patriot Act.

New regulations by the Treasury Dept. now demand that credit card companies, mutual fund brokers, commodity dealers and wire transfer firms like Western Union, begin filling out "suspicious activity reports" on their customers.

This KGB-style program is apparently not enough for the IRS.

NewsMax hears from Washington insiders the IRS wants to expand these informant reports of "suspicious activity" and to have them filed regularly by travel agents, hedge fund managers, auto dealers, boat dealers and jewelry and metal dealers.

We think Larry Klayman has a point.

* _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _ * _

SCRAP THE CODE, ABOLISH THE I.R.S.

23 posted on 12/06/2005 12:17:42 PM PST by Mikey (Freedom isn't free, but slavery is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD
There always has been "something wrong" with it. The only reason that the U.S. taxes as many people as much as it does falls under one of the Seven Deadly Sins: Envy, and congresscritters have been getting by with this since FDR.

The "someone has something that I don't have" mentality is and continues to be a big problem in the U.S.

24 posted on 12/06/2005 12:44:45 PM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mikey
They all agree


25 posted on 12/06/2005 6:59:02 PM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late; Recovering_Democrat; Alissa; Pan_Yans Wife; LADY J; mathluv; browardchad; cardinal4; ...

26 posted on 12/07/2005 1:05:55 PM PST by Born Conservative (Chronic Positivity: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jsher/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I must admit that I'm ignorant as to how the AMT works. What is it based on; number of children and income? If so, the MORE children you have, the more likely you are to be socked with the AMT?


27 posted on 12/07/2005 1:08:50 PM PST by Born Conservative (Chronic Positivity: http://www.livejournal.com/users/jsher/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

I agree taxes should be uniformly lower across the board.

The way the AMT works, by comparing a total of deductions (many of which have already been partially phased out due to income level) with the AGI, is just bizarre.

If an AMT was doing what it was supposed to do -- ie, making sure EVERYBODY pays at least SOME income tax -- then I think a much fairer method would have been this:

Every pays 5% of ALL INCOME, with no deductions and no exemptions except for SS/Disability income. Lower the tax rate on all the "brackets" by 5% at the same time.

That AMT would raise $500B/yr -- more than half of the total Individual Income taxes currently paid.

Of course, the the goal of the AMT is not, and has never been, to ensure that EVERYBODY pays at least some taxes. It has always been intended to punish the wealthy for their success. The Socialists could never get their pet nanny-state programs adopted if their voters weren't getting a free ride from the existing income tax.

Even making them contribute 5% of their income to supporting the country would make a huge change in their voting habits.


28 posted on 12/13/2005 2:45:20 PM PST by Kellis91789 (Rome didn't build a great Empire by having meetings. It did it by killing all who opposed it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
In place of paying x amount of taxes to pay for the common defense and general welfare, parents make a non-monetary contribution to the general welfare of much greater value by bearing and raising children.

And here I was, thinking that parents raised a family because they wanted to. Are you saying that the parents are not already fairly compensated by the joy of having children and the hope that they'll be cared for in their old age ?

As for the theory that only low income immigrants would have children in the US if you took away the child credits and deductions, that strains credibility. Those credits and deductions are obviously much more valuble to the low income immigrant than to higher income, higher skilled workers. Between Child Credits, income tax deductions, and EITC, it might actually be possible for an extra child to cost that low income worker NOTHING -- with the tax benefits paying for food and clothing. Is that what we really want ?
29 posted on 12/13/2005 3:01:13 PM PST by Kellis91789 (Rome didn't build a great Empire by having meetings. It did it by killing all who opposed it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: george76

The Republicrats are loathe to give up the revenue. Need to buy those votes, you know.


30 posted on 12/13/2005 3:04:27 PM PST by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

FYI, I just checked the current figures for what our great welfare state offers to young single women to encourage them to become young single mothers.

Income Tax Deduction = $3,200 per child x 10% tax rate = $320/yr
Child Tax Credit = $1,000/yr
EITC (for $15,000 income) = $2,662/yr
Food Stamp benefit = $2,292/yr

Total incentive for a single working mother to have a kid = $6,274.

There are probably dozens of other welfare programs that would add to this "encouragement."


31 posted on 12/13/2005 3:30:03 PM PST by Kellis91789 (Rome didn't build a great Empire by having meetings. It did it by killing all who opposed it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson