[Logophile]

That's not the way it started. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to thwart a handful of wealthy taxpayers from piling up tax breaks to avoid paying a fair share of taxes.

Envy is an ugly thing. It is also a destructive force in a free society. Why should I care if a few wealthy individuals manage not to pay their "fair share" (whatever that means) -- especially if forcing them to pay more means I will have to pay more too?

It erases a raft of whopping write-offs in affluent places like Silicon Valley, notably deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, state income taxes and miscellaneous itemized deductions. The AMT also targets capital gains and dividend income and paper profits on incentive stock options.

In other words, it is a tax on success.

[dfwgator]

Envy is an ugly thing. It is also a destructive force in a free society. Why should I care if a few wealthy individuals manage not to pay their "fair share" (whatever that means) -- especially if forcing them to pay more means I will have to pay more too?

I agree. And now it's biting us in the butt. But nobody cared before because "the rich are finally getting theirs'."

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Progressive income taxes discourage productivity. A consumption tax like the fairtax would tax consumption, not productivity. The left comes into this debate with the presumption that citizens that earn high salaries are "rich" and are ABLE to pay higher taxes, while those that make less income, are "poor" and NEED more from government and should pay less. That is why, even now the top 20% of taxpayers pay 80% of the taxes. This concept sounds like the Marxist chant of "from each according to their ability to each according to their need."