Cynical Nation

You're right, let's do away with the AMT altogether. God forbid we index it to inflation...

The nerve of the government, expecting the wealthy to pay income tax. Bring back the loopholes!

Bah!

A pox on you conservatives!

The AMT, like the income tax is NOT aimed at the "wealthy" at all, as high income is not the same as real wealth.

The truly "rich" don't rely on incomes for their wealth. Most of their real assetts are in the form of various Capital Gains and Dividends, that are rightly taxed at a very low rate.

I believe Mrs Heinz-Kerry paid something like 3% in taxes the year before John kerry ran for President.

I can't imagine why anyone would have a big problem with that. She didn't "work," in any traditional sense, her assetts came mostly from stock dividends and some Capital Gains and people like that create tons of jobs merely by investing some of that awesome wealth. In short, merely by existing, the truly rich do more good than harm.

In other words, neither the AMT, nor the income tax are directed at truly "rich" people, nor, in my view, should any sane person seek to punish such people with the excessive burden of high taxation.

The graduated income tax, along with the AMT are designed to keep people who work at high paying jobs from accruing substantial Capital and becoming truly rich.

The AMT doesn't impact the likes of Mrs Heinz-Kerry, but it does impact the thoracic surgeon who rightfully and I'm sure we'd all agree, deservingly earns an income several times that of the average income, due to his rare and hard to master skill set, and who has reduced his income tax burden via high mortgate and property tax deductions and other such legitimate and necessary deductions.

Again, there is no sane reason for anyone to advocate punishing, via the burden of excessive taxation, the likes of Dr. M who earns a very high income and lives in high style. His rare and hard to master skill set make that set of skills much more valuable in a market based economy and he provides more than equal value to society at large with the work he performs.

For some strange reason, some folks keep confusing what "class envy" really is. For instance, it's NEVER "class envy" when people like Dr M seek to keep more of their own money - they earned it. On the other hand, it's ALWAYS "class envy" when someone advocates "taking from the "rich" (when really meaning the high income earners, like Dr M) so that others can have more.

The problem we face, is the problem inherant in the current tax model that taxes income/productivity, it gives some folks, let's call them "the less ambitious," the misguided notion that they're entitled to some of the largesse of people like Dr M.

It's another reason why the only why out of this mess and toward a much more vibrant and productive America is via the eradication of the income tax and its replacement with some kind of consumption based tax, like the Fair Tax or the NRST.

Is it "class envy" to want to stop unending dynasties of mega-wealthy dolts like Dubya from using their wealth to criminally influence government into further propogating their wealth down the line to even more idiot kings?

We only need to change the laws to protect ordinary people, you know, people who can't afford to run for office.

Earned it? They EARNED it? You must be out of your mind. I bet you don't think Joe Kennedy earned his money, do you? Look what it brought.

The same with the Bush family.

I like the idea of tax reform.

My problem is, I do not want it considered until we start balancing the budget.

We can't afford to think of tax cuts when we are borrowing a billion dollars a day to cover our overspending, and another 2 billion a day to pay for consumer crap from the Chinese and the other countries we are in hock to.

Of course, the "Libertarians" and GOP nudniks are still convinced we can "grow" ourselves out of deficits.

That Reagan kool-aid has been proved to cause permanent brain-damage.

"Is it "class envy" to want to stop unending dynasties of mega-wealthy dolts like Dubya from using their wealth to criminally influence government into further propogating their wealth down the line to even more idiot kings?

We only need to change the laws to protect ordinary people, you know, people who can't afford to run for office." (BH)

What does that rant have to do with tax policy Barely Hanging?

What you seem to be addressing is inheritance laws, or perhaps the inheritance/"death" tax.

There are those who do beleive that people should not be able to hand down or inherit wealth, but that violates the concept of private property - the very concept this nation was founded on.

Bill Gates earend his money and so did Joe Kennedy (it wasa a high risk venture working with the Dutch Schultz gang during prohibition and he filled a demand for illicit booze with a willing supply...for a price) and they should be able to hand down the fortunes they made and the businesse they built to whoever they want.

What I can't figure out is how anyone could think those businesses built by individuals should become communal propoerty upon their deaths?

What JMK said.

"I like the idea of tax reform.

My problem is, I do not want it considered until we start balancing the budget.

We can't afford to think of tax cuts when we are borrowing a billion dollars a day to cover our overspending, and another 2 billion a day to pay for consumer crap from the Chinese and the other countries we are in hock to.

Of course, the "Libertarians" and GOP nudniks are still convinced we can "grow" ourselves out of deficits.

That Reagan kool-aid has been proved to cause permanent brain-damage." (Blue88)

Well, we DID "grow oursleves out of the deficit" back in the late 1990s when the GOP led Congress pushed for spending cuts.

Tax increases never increase revenues as people naturally react to such stimuli. When income tax rates are raised, anyone who can, and that's most higher income people, tend to place more of their money in tax deferred vehicles - the result is lower tax revenues.

Likewise, when income tax rates are lowered (this holds to the level down to about 22%) tax revenues actually increase, as more people, with more money tend to take more of that money up front and non-deferred.

People made the argument years ago about the trade deficit with Japan, as that nation subsidized its cars sold here. As Milton Friedman argued, "Why not take Japan's money?" When Japan subsidizes a $30,000 car, with $10,000 of Japanese money so that it can be sold here for $22,000, we're not only getting a cheaper car, but an extra $10,000 per vehicle of Japanese money.

The same argument can be used in the exporting of goods from cheaper venues - when goods can be manufactured in places like China, Mexico, India, or Thailand for a fraction of what they can be made here, then that work is no longer economically feasable to be done here. American workers will have to be trained to do other jobs.

But income tax cuts are not the same as "tax reform." Not by a long shot.

There is really only one route to meaningful tax reform (OK two, but the "Flat Tax" keeps the income tax and its onus on taxing income/productivity) and that is the NRST or Fair Tax, which offers a lower rate on basic necessities and meds, an exemption for all, up to the current poverty level and best of all switches the onus/tax burden away from income/productivity and onto consumption.

The Fair Tax would actually bring in more revenues as it would tax the currently untaxed "black market"/underground economy and would replace the personal income (payroll tax), the corporate income tax, the FICA tax and several others, bringing in the same revenue stream that exists today, so the argument based on fears of lower revenues is not pertinent.