Alternative Minimum Tax

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Nobody's arguing the principle, saden. They're criticizing the execution.

Making sure everyone pays their fair share of tax makes all the sense in the world. Failing to adjust the threshold for inflation, however, is nothing short of f*cking retarded. Good idea, but as usual, f*cked up by the geniuses within the US government.

Getting rid of the AMT would be more fair than keeping it as-is. As it stands now, it's one of the great tax injustices of all-time. Ideally, they'd keep the AMT (because it's a decent idea) but simply adjust the threshold up. It'd be pretty easy - go back to the year the threshold was set, multiply it by the CPI for every year until 2008, bringing it up into the $200-300K range. Then index it to inflation moving forward.

Ok you say everyone should pay their fair shair but its retarded to have a AMT for lower income people. Is that wanting it both ways. Maybe it just seems OK to hit people making more because they have more but why is it a good idea for one group of people and not the other?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok you say everyone should pay their fair shair but its retarded to have a AMT for lower income people. Is that wanting it both ways. Maybe it just seems OK to hit people making more because they have more but why is it a good idea for one group of people and not the other?

As to the question why should the rich pay more taxes? Their are two reasons:

1) As others have pointed out, the greater your wealth - the greater your level of disposal income. A loaf of bread and a gallon of gas cost the same whether you make 30,000 or 300,000. A family of four can get by okay on 50,000 but every penny counts and 10% of their income will affect their ability to afford much more beyond the basics. A family of four can live in moderate luxury on 500,000. While they will not be able to afford all the luxuries they might if they pay 20% of their income in taxes - would anyone suggest that a family of four could not live very very well on an income of 400,000?

2) More importantly, the richer you are the more you have benefitted from the governmental infrastructure supported by the taxes. My ability to collect wealth is directly related to the stable economy, the transportation infrastructure, the regulation of commerce and the enforcement of the criminal code by the various governmental entities in the US. It seems self evident to me that those who profit the most from the structures and institutions created and sustained by government should be pay a higher percentage of their income.

It is, of course a balancing act. Destroying the incentive to be wealthy will destroy the tax base. i.e. for all our benefit, people most be allowed to be wealthy.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok you say everyone should pay their fair shair but its retarded to have a AMT for lower income people. Is that wanting it both ways. Maybe it just seems OK to hit people making more because they have more but why is it a good idea for one group of people and not the other?

Your posts almost always confuse me. I can never quite tell what you're trying to say/ask.

Perhaps you just don't understand what the AMT is. By definition, AMT was designed to target the affluent, not the upper middle class, not the middle class, and not the poor. It was designed to ensure the rich could not take advantage of deductions and shelters to avoid paying their fair share.

If you're questioning what "fair share" is, then you seem to be arguing for a flat tax, which JR just addressed. That's an entirely different discussion.