PDA

View Full Version : The AMT and YOU. Good News



Gan
07-20-2005, 07:44 PM
Tax panel recommends eliminating AMT

Wednesday, July 20, 2005; Posted: 4:13 p.m. EDT (20:13 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A presidential panel said Wednesday that the alternative minimum tax, designed to snare affluent tax dodgers but now hovering over the middle class, should be abolished.

"I think we have to bite the bullet," Bill Frenzel, a former House lawmaker who served on budget and tax writing committees, said at a meeting of the panel.

It's the first decision made by the nine tax experts chosen to analyze the nation's tax system and recommend changes to make it simpler, fairer and more economically efficient.

The consensus to repeal the alternative minimum tax means the panel must replace the more than $1.2 trillion that the Treasury Department expected to collect through that tax over the coming decade. The president instructed the panel to develop restructuring ideas that raise the same amount of tax revenue as current laws.

Commission Chairman Connie Mack, a former Florida senator, said the government's tax revenue could be replaced through changes in tax rates or tax breaks in the commission's recommendations to simplify or replace the tax system.

"The choices range from rates to expenditures," he said. "No decision's been made on that."

A few commission members said the panel should be careful not to let a few wealthy taxpayers avoid paying taxes by repealing the alternative minimum tax.

"That's not fair," said Elizabeth Garrett, a public policy professor at the University of Southern California. Taxpayers lose confidence in the tax system when they see a few people escaping taxation, she said.

Congress invented the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, in the late 1960s after learning that a few wealthy individuals paid no income tax. It has ballooned in the decades since under the effects of inflation, and it increases taxes for more middle class families every year.

In recent years, lawmakers have enacted temporary fixes to prevent the AMT from growing as fast as anticipated. A bipartisan group of senators tried to force serious discussion about the AMT by introducing a bill to repeal it this spring.

Those affected must calculate their tax twice, under the regular tax system and then the alternative system, and pay the higher amount. Middle class families hit with the tax often have multiple children, live in high tax states or have large unreimbursed work expenses.

It affects nearly 4 million families this year but will hit nearly 21 million next year and more than 51 million in a decade, according to statistics compiled by the Treasury Department and presented to the panel.

Many commission members agreed that the corporate alternative minimum tax also posed serious problems, but the panel stopped short of recommending its repeal.

The panel has broken up into four working groups to sift through dozens of tax problems and proposals for change. The groups are studying ways to simplify tax laws, adjust current tax laws and replace the tax system in whole or in part.

Former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti said the working group discussing simplicity has been trying to zero in on changes that might help the most taxpayers, like streamlining family deductions and credits and savings incentives.

That group has also investigated the myriad thresholds that tell taxpayers at different income levels whether they qualify for those tax breaks.

To encourage more people to save for retirement, the panel considered recommending that employees be automatically enrolled in retirement programs unless they opt out, and expanding tax credits that help low-income families save. No final decisions were made.

Mack said he expects the working groups to develop ideas to be discussed and approved by the full panel later this year. The commission must make its final recommendations this fall.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/20/tax.overhaul.ap/index.html

Atlanteax
07-20-2005, 08:13 PM
This is the problem with a relatively inefficient tax code.

Nevermind the $millions it'll save the taxpayers... not in taxes... but in the time, effort, required to prepare their taxes twice (often resulting in higher accountant fees for most).

.

For the rich... perhaps something simple like a 20% on all gross income in excess of $1m

Back
07-20-2005, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Atlanteax
This is the problem with a relatively inefficient tax code.

Nevermind the $millions it'll save the taxpayers... not in taxes... but in the time, effort, required to prepare their taxes twice (often resulting in higher accountant fees for most).

.

For the rich... perhaps something simple like a 20% on all gross income in excess of $1m

Why 20%? Why not as much as the real people who keep this country afloat. Honest people who work long hours without lawyers or tax specialist advisors on how to cheat the system with off-shore accounts?

Gan
07-20-2005, 09:48 PM
I think this is probably the most important reason why the tax needs to be repealed as stated in the article.



Congress invented the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, in the late 1960s after learning that a few wealthy individuals paid no income tax. It has ballooned in the decades since under the effects of inflation, and it increases taxes for more middle class families every year.

In recent years, lawmakers have enacted temporary fixes to prevent the AMT from growing as fast as anticipated. A bipartisan group of senators tried to force serious discussion about the AMT by introducing a bill to repeal it this spring.

Those affected must calculate their tax twice, under the regular tax system and then the alternative system, and pay the higher amount. Middle class families hit with the tax often have multiple children, live in high tax states or have large unreimbursed work expenses.

It affects nearly 4 million families this year but will hit nearly 21 million next year and more than 51 million in a decade, according to statistics compiled by the Treasury Department and presented to the panel.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Ganalon]

Gan
07-20-2005, 09:51 PM
And yes I think that the uber-rich still need to be responsible for taxes just as every other American is. However, I hope that the bulk of the taxpayers arent sacrificed because someone is afraid that by repealing this, a few uber-rich might get off from being taxed.

Jorddyn
07-20-2005, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
However, I hope that the bulk of the taxpayers arent sacrificed because someone is afraid that by repealing this, a few uber-rich might get off from being taxed.

I believe the entire tax system is screwy, but the AMT really NEEDS to go. It was instituted nearly 40 years ago, hasn't been indexed for inflation, and has been largely ignored because most people didn't even know it existed.

If they can't eliminate it entirely (for fear, for loss of revenue, for whatever reason), they should simply raise the minimum from 40k to 200k, or 500k, or wherever it needs to be to match the original intent.

Jorddyn

Atlanteax
07-20-2005, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Atlanteax
This is the problem with a relatively inefficient tax code.

Nevermind the $millions it'll save the taxpayers... not in taxes... but in the time, effort, required to prepare their taxes twice (often resulting in higher accountant fees for most).

.

For the rich... perhaps something simple like a 20% on all gross income in excess of $1m

Why 20%? Why not as much as the real people who keep this country afloat. Honest people who work long hours without lawyers or tax specialist advisors on how to cheat the system with off-shore accounts?

20% was just a figure.

Remember, it'd be 20% of gross not net income. There's a difference there.

It likely can't be as high as 40 or 50% as usually people who make that much a year, do have some legitimate expenses (or deductions).

But now that I think about it, 20% is probably a bit low.

I think I was thinking as if it was a corporation at the time I came up with the 20% and not an individual.