Why the fuck did all but 4 Dem Reps vote to scrap the Alt. Min. Tax?

[stickdog]

The House approved the stand-alone scrap-the-AMT bill last week on a 414-4 vote!

If a single person earns $100,000 a year, the Alternative Minimum Tax says he/she can't pay less than $15,535 in federal taxes. That's an effective 15.5% tax bracket on the first $100,000. If you are married and filing jointly, your first $150,000 is taxed at a a 16.3% effective rate. Of course, the less you make, the lower that value goes -- such well over 90% of Americans don't owed a dime in AMT.

So why the fuck are DEMOCRATS voting in droves to give another huge tax break to the superwealthly? What percentage of Democratic constituents is this even an issue for? And if it's such a problem for the middle class (which it ain't), why not just add another 15% - 25% on to the already generous AMT exemption ($58,000 for joint filers; $40,250 for unmarried persons; $29,000 for those married filing separately)?

Money not collected in AMT either comes out of regular income tax, government programs for the needy or gets put on our ever expanding ChinaCredit card tab. Why did Dem Reps sell us out without a peep when over 95% of their constituents are helped by this tax -- which limits the loopholes of the superwealthy?

[deadmessengers]

1. Because it was the right thing

The problem with the AMT is that it affects more middle-class people than wealthy ones. Each year, it affected more middle-class people, as incomes rose due to inflation.

[question everything]

5. And affects people in blue states like CA and NY (nt)

[trogdor]

35. Like me.

Exhorbitant property taxes - that'll learn us to actually support our public schools.

[stickdog]

26. So why not just raise exemptions by 15% to 25%? (nt)

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. Hold on there. 100k in NYC is middle class

and in SF, Boston and some other places too.

This is a piece of shit law which should have been tied to inflation, but was not, so what seemed like a insanely high salary in 1973 (IIRC) of 100k was taxed "fairly"

now of course, with the average home price topping 300k in the northeast, 100k for a family of four, while comfortable, is certainly not "wealthy"

not by any stretch of the imagination.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. As homeowner in a state...

with one of the highest property tax and insurance rates (TX), with the raising price of gas, electricity, water, everything else, I whole-heartedly agree. Wife and I pull a little more than 100 K, we are very middle class.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

23. Same boat, different oar here in NY

[stickdog]

27. So raise the exemption. What is your objection to this solution?

Anything over $200,000 a year for a household is still insanely wealthy, even in NY, SF or Boston.

Doe you really think someone earning more than $200,000 should get away with somehow lowering his or her federal tax rate below 28%?

Who do you think is going to pick up the slack for this shortfall?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

37. Great, so raise the exemption

So where are the Democrats on this?

Nowhere.

[sendero]

28. Exactly...

.... the AMT was a good idea but failing to index it to inflation was moronic. They had to do something about it.

If you want to raise taxes, do it in a straightforward way, not just let inflation kick middle class people into a pool that was supposed to be only for the very rich who were abusing loopholes.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

3. PBS covered this. The Repukes tried to use it as a wedge issue

They (Repukes) pulled it from the budget, as a separate vote. Their alt. amendment would have helped the Dem. states, but at the expense of the Budget cuts coming up. (NOW, PBS, covered this last night).

The Repukes, tried to strong arm the Dem's into voting for this, to get the 70 billion, tax cuts!

Damn, the Dem's finally are growing, cajones, and people question their motives.

[question everything]

6. Yes. Read more about it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2304803

[unblock]

4. amt will nail about 19 million middle class folks in dem states

under the amt rules, you can't deduct property and income taxes, so this disproportionately affects blue states like ca, ny, and ma.

[stickdog]

29. So RAISE THE fucking exemption by 25%!

Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

[trogdor]

36. You act like the Democrats are actually in charge of shit.

They aren't. That's the problem. Their job, until we can get them a majority, is to yammer and stomp their feet until they get some reasonable portion of what they want. We piss and moan when they don't give us what we want, but forget that they really can't do much else than what they're doing.

[DemInDistress]

7. The America I knew was,"if you earn more, you pay more" not

if you earn a million you pay 15%. Shame on those sellouts.

[napi21]

8. I want to know why they didn't just change the max?

I'l sure never see $100,000 in one year, but I understand in some major cities, it's middle class now. I don't understand why there wasn't a proposal to just increase the earnings amount when the AMT kicked in, and then tie it to inflation. It would have kept the intent of the original law, and still been a fair tax.

If anyone suggested that, I sure didn't hear about it.

[freethought]

14. Some incomes have outstripped inflation

As to why AMT was never adjusted, I don't know.
And don't be too sure you'll never see it. Put it this way, let's say you get married and file taxes jointly. For some that could put income in the low six digits where AMT could very likely snag you.

[stickdog]

30. It's not gonna "snag" anybody who is not rich if you simply

raise the AMT exemption to 80,000 per married couple.

[bluestateguy]

9. We're they scraping it or modifying it?

Because more and more people are getting pushed into paying the AMT. The intent of the law, passed in 1969, was so that people in Bill Gates territory would have to pay something, even if they had a lot of legal tax loopholes that they could claim.

If you are married with 2 or 3 kids, or if you live in San Francisco or New York, $100,000 really is not that much money at all. It's not poor, mind you, but that is not a person who our tax laws should treat as if he/she is "rich".

For a long time Congress has neglected to keep the AMT up with inflation, meaning that more and more people are being pushed into it.

[OneTwentyoNine]

22. Thats what I want to know--hell,just bump it up to 2-300,000 grand..

Repukes want to kill the AMT on a permanant basis instead of adjusting it. Great..you'll be back to the days like the mid-sixties where certain people made a MILLION per year and paid ZERO taxes.

Don't kill off the AMT,merely adjust it from 1969 to 2006.

[stickdog]

31. That's EXACTLY my point! (nt)

[freethought]

10. AMT was put into affect years ago

and was never adjusted for the incomes of today. Years ago $100,000/year was BIG BUCKS. Now, for a some families and CEOs $100,000 is one week's pay. AMT affects a bracket of income, those above that bracket who should really be paying AMT aren't even affected by it.

Alot of people who thought they were going to make out like bandits on Chimp's tax cuts, that upper-middle class suburban bracket, are getting hit with AMT and they probably haven't even heard of it before. They start salivating when they start thinking about what they are going to get back in tax cuts. Then they get the call from their CPA saying "Sorry! There is AMT you have to pay!"

[Skink]

11. If you make 100 G's you should pay through the nose.

Try living on 15.

[bluestateguy]

12. There are toll collectors for the Jersey Turnpike who make that much

Granted, if you are single, that gives you a little more disposable income, but then you don't have the per child tax credits or deductions either. You throw in a mortgage on a modest house and a couple of kids and that doesn't put you on easy street. And these days a doctor or a professor making $100,000 could be spending years paying back years of student loans from graduate school or medical school.

Should that person pay at a higher rate than someone making $15,000? Of course. I don't think anyone here is against progressive taxation. But they should not be "soaked" either, as if they are indistinguishable from Paris Hilton or the Walton family.

[freethought]

16. AMT was orginally put into effect for people like

Paris Hilton or the Waltons. Back in 1969 these people of that pinnacle income bracket could afford all kinds of loopholes and get away with paying almost nothing. There is even AMT for Corporations, endorsed by Ronald Reagan of all people.
People of that pinnacle income brakcet are making million upon millions a year. AMT does not even touch them.

[freethought]

13. AMT was one of the rude surprises alot of people got

Tax time rolls around. They are thinking "Oh Boy! We are gonna make out awesome this year!" Later they are saying "WTF is Alternative Minimum Tax?!!!" Joke's on them!

[1932]

18. That's 2 school teachers making $50k each & you're taking child tax credit

and mortage interest deduction away from them WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THEIR MORTGAGE INTEREST (OR THEIR MORTGAGE) OR THE COSTS OF RAISING THEIR KIDS.

You think that it's fair to charge those people 16% when billionaires like Theresa Heinz who's worth billions but has little or no earned income can pay 14% on her income because it's mostly divided and capital gains taxed at 15% and municipal bonds dividends which aren't taxed at all (and which are not recaptured by the AMT)?

You think that's fair??

[Mountainman]

25. Screw you ! Why don't you try to work a bit harder and leave the

rest of us middle class people have a decent standard of living.

[stickdog]

32. So why not just increase the exemption?

Not ONE of AMT's critics have addressed this point. Why not?

[bornskeptic]

15. They didn't scrap it.

They voted to maintain the exemption levels at $58,000 for couples and $40,250 for single taxpayers. Otherwise, the exemptions would have dropped to $45,000 and $33,750 respectively.

The House's extension would exempt from the taxation the first $58,000 of income for married couples filing jointly and the first $40,250 for individual tax filers.

Without the extension, the amount of income exempted would fall to levels that were set before tax-law changes in 2001 and 2003: $45,000 for married couples and $33,750 for individuals.

The higher exemption levels will also be raised slightly in 2006 to compensate for 2005's inflation rate.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/13357804.htm

[1932]

17. The AMT should be on corporate income and not on individuals.

Or it shoudl be on capital gains and dividends and not just earned income.

And it shouldn't start unti much more than the equivalent of a married couple making $50,000 each.

[upi402]

20. even working poor repeat the corporate line:

"Why should a man (man?) who takes the risk and works harder get punished for his efforts"
-Any Bushtard

[applegrove]

21. Rich will hide their money. The middle class get hit. And it needs to

be updated so that everyone pays their fair share. The whole neocon/GOP agenda is to make the middle class hold the burden of all taxation - so that they will be driven to vote for cuts to government programs. First step was to reduce taxes on the rich. Step two to squeeze the middle class by leaving the burden on them.

[Mountainman]

24. This not just a tax break for the super wealthy. I got hit with AMT and

I certinly am not super wealthy. The AMT effects more and more people because it is not indexed for inflation.

[stickdog]

33. So what is your effective federal tax rate? Would you mind sharing

those details with us?

I don't think family making over $150,000-$200,000 a year should be too upset if the federal government ends up with less than 20% of their total income.

[LittleClarkie]

34. Because from articles I've read, it's encroaching on the middle

class, and some of them are paying thousands more than they should be.

There was a cartoon in my local paper that had the middle class represented as an ATM machine, with the guy protesting that he wasn't one of the super wealthy.

The IRS answered "Whatever. It's convenient."

The government was using it to fuck over the middle. Like we need the middle to shrink any more than it has.

If this alternative tax did what it was supposed to do, that would be one thing. It doesn't. It needs a MAJOR overhaul. Good for the Dems to recognize this.

[nickshepDEM]

38. Scrapping the AMT is an essential part of any respectable tax reform plan.