AMT ??
<RJ>
For years, people of wealth have used a combination
of tax loopholes and clever accountants
to reduce their Federal Tax burden to ZERO.
The AMT ( Alternative Minimum Tax ) was enacted
so everyone would pay "their fair share".
As I understand it, if you gross more than "X dollars",
your minimum tax burden will be a flat percentage,
regardless of what sort of deductions you have.
( sounds fair to me )
Congress is complaining that now, this affects
middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
and the numbers should be juggled.
????
What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
<rj>
Rod Speed
> Maybe someone can explain this to me;
> For years, people of wealth have used a
> combination of tax loopholes and clever accountants
> to reduce their Federal Tax burden to ZERO.
Thats where you are going wrong, most dont manage to get it to zero.
> The AMT ( Alternative Minimum Tax ) was
> enacted so everyone would pay "their fair share".
Its more complicated than that too.
> As I understand it, if you gross more than "X dollars",
> your minimum tax burden will be a flat percentage,
> regardless of what sort of deductions you have.
> ( sounds fair to me )
> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or
> more, and the numbers should be juggled.
> ????
> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
Nothing is unfair about THAT. What is being discussed is adjusting
the level at which the AMT applys so that it still catches the same
group that it was intended to catch, given that otherwise the level
wouldnt be adjusted for inflation and other tax cuts etc.
> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
It doesnt. It only apply to those with incomes much higher than that.
> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
Because it was never intended to apply to those either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax
imascot
> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
> and the numbers should be juggled.
>
> ????
>
> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>
> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>
> <rj>
>
Is $75,000 per year considered a double income where you are? Where I am, (east coast) $75,000
better be ONE of the incomes, if you plan on owning a house, and I'm not talking about buying one
at today's prices, I'm talking about keeping one like mine, bought 10 years ago for under $130,000.
The AMT, if it creeps up on folks like me, will eliminate all property tax and other deductions.
Since I pay about $7,000 per year in property tax alone, (not to even mention the extortionate
state income tax), it will make owning a home almost impossible.
J.
Jeff
> screwing.
> the real problem is that to the liberloons you are a rich person and
> should be taxed even higher levels in order to give to the indigents,
You just believe anything you hear on wingnut radio.
<URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1963009420071219 />
Note that it was blue dog fiscal conservative democrats that opposed the
patch.
And just what percent of the federal budget do you think goes to
indigents? What percent do you think goes to wealthy corporate farmers?
Here's the average annual spending increase of the federal budget (does
not include the off budget Iraq War):
* Johnson: 4.1 percent
* Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
* Carter: 1.6 percent
* Reagan: 1.4 percent
* Bush I: 3.8 percent
* Clinton: 2.1 percent
* Bush II: 4.8 percent
You are just looking for a scapegoat. Value of the dollar is a bit
more than half what it was when W was elected. US debt is 50% higher and
going up. Nobody knows the risk exposure of all those CDO's and the
economy is being propped up by cheap money.
But go ahead and blame it all on a few poor people if it makes you
feel better.
Jeff
> whom for whatever reason either cannot or will do anything to help
> themselves
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
<RJ>
>>What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>>
>>If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
>>then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>>
>><rj>
>
> the AMT was implemented back in the 60s to nail the super rich who
>by various means avoided much of the taxes.
> back when the AMT was implemented the tax rate on these people was
>about 90%, so who could blame them for seeking loopholes,
>anyway the AMT was never indexed for inflation and now that many
>families are earning over 6 figures they are getting caught up by the
>AMT which limits most deductions and causes these families to pay even
>higher taxes.
>
The AMT intent is;
"You pay a percentage of your income,
regardless of your deductions."
I see nothing unfair about that.
The average ( minimum wage ) McDonalds employee
doesn't have the advantage of tax shelters.
He probably pays a higher percentage of his income in ( federal ) taxes
than Donald Trump............... Now that's unfair !
<rj>
Rod Speed
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:12:27 -0500, jdoe <jd...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>>>
>>> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
>>> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>>>
>>> <rj>
>> obviously you are an ignoramus
>>
>> the AMT was implemented back in the 60s to nail the super rich who
>> by various means avoided much of the taxes.
>> back when the AMT was implemented the tax rate on these people was
>> about 90%, so who could blame them for seeking loopholes,
>> anyway the AMT was never indexed for inflation and now that many
>> families are earning over 6 figures they are getting caught up by the
>> AMT which limits most deductions and causes these families to pay
>> even higher taxes.
> The AMT intent is;
> "You pay a percentage of your income, regardless of your deductions."
ONLY for those that end up paying more under AMT than they would otherwise pay.
> I see nothing unfair about that.
Its a regressive taxation system and has a number of other disadvantages,
particularly for those who do have significant deductions in just some years.
They esssentially get slugged much more in those years than they would otherwise be.
> The average ( minimum wage ) McDonalds employee
> doesn't have the advantage of tax shelters.
He does however have the advantage of a number of deductions.
> He probably pays a higher percentage of his income in ( federal )
> taxes than Donald Trump............... Now that's unfair !
Nope, because it aint the percentage that matters.
Tony Sivori
> I don't understand the losers like you who don't realize that the top
> 10% of earners in the US pay about 95% of the taxes.
Not true. The top 10% pay 70% of the federal income tax.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Wait, Rush Limbaugh, that tireless defender of the rich and powerful, says
that the top 10% pays 64% of all federal taxes.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
If the above link breaks in your news reader:
The top 10% also owns 71% of all the wealth.
See: "Figure 1: Net worth and financial wealth distribution in the U.S. in
2001"
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
--
Tony Sivori
clams_casino
>
>I don't understand the losers like you who don't realize that the top
>10% of earners in the US pay about 95% of the taxes.
>
>
Care to provide ANY reference to support such a wild statement? Or is
that a Rush statistic?
In 2004, the top 10% paid $567M of the $832B dollars of federal income
taxes collected in 2004 (68%). Of course, that's only federal income
tax.
http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/pr.pdf shows the top 1% pay about 7% in
state and local taxes vs. about 10% for average earners.
Furthermore, average earners pay about 7.7% for FICA taxes vs. 0.8% for
the top 1% (taxed income is capped at about $90,000)
When you factor in all taxes, the percent taxes paid by the wealthy
tend to be quite similar to others. Bottom line, the wealthy pay more
taxes simply because they have more of the wealth / have higher incomes,
but the percentage tends to be relatively similar.
For example, the top 1% pay about 23.5% of their income in Federal
taxes, 5% in State/local taxes and 0.8% in FICA taxes or about 29.3% of
income.
The average payer pays about 13.5% in Fed taxes, 7% in state/local taxes
and 7.7% in FICA taxes (likely 9-15% for dual wage earning families) or
about 28.2% of income (higher for duel income households)
Of course, there are also many perks for the wealthy that average people
tend not to enjoy, including typically $14k+ tax-free medical care, very
gracious home ownership tax subsidies, various business perks (tax free
meals at the finest restaurants, preferred / free seating at sporting
events, free use of cars), etc.
clams_casino
>for some real facts visit www.taxfoundation.org/
>__________________________________________
>
>
>
and so where does it state (even suggest) the top 10% pay 95% of the taxes?
clams_casino
>On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:05:45 -0500, clams_casino
>do your own research, the data is there, dig around, find the charts
>and read them, why do you expect anyone to do the work for you?
>__________________________________________
>
>
I did & supplied data - YOU are the one who made the idiotic claim " the
top 10% of earners in the US pay about 95% of the taxes" & can't provide
any substantiation.
Obviously your claim was fabricated (or simply another unfounded "Rush"
statistic?).
clams_casino
>On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:50:46 -0500, clams_casino
>1. I don't listen to Rush or any other moronic show like that
>2. you are either incapable of doing any leg work of your own
>3. you cling to your views regardless of anything put forth that
>conflicts with your intransigent insights
>
>go to the site offered dig through the data and my stats will be
>proven.
>if you don't like that site there are many others, try this one.
>www.whitehouse.gov/omb
>__________________________________________
>
>
Once again, you provided a lot of data with nothing to support your claim.
It's become quite obvious you have fabricated that claim.
Jeff
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:32:00 -0500, clams_casino
> <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
From the same group of people that twisted the facts on the Iraq, the
mortgage industry and others. When you have an agenda, that is all you
see...
<URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html />
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of
Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 —
receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of
newly released tax data shows.
...
The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal
Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent
of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business
and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals,
because not everybody accurately reports such figures.
Now, I ask you if you really believe that the tax cuts paid for
themselves, the OMB doesn't, or if you really don't care about the
health of the economy, just the money in your own pocket.
And, of course, you've conveniently left out social security and
medicare taxes.
<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States/>
Some lower income individuals pay a proportionately higher share of
payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare than do some higher
income individuals in terms of the effective tax rate. All income earned
up to a point, adjusted annually for inflation ($94,200 for the year
2006 and $97,500 for the year 2007) is taxed at 7.65% (consisting of the
6.2% Social Security tax and the 1.45% Medicare tax) on the employee
with an addition 7.65% in tax incurred by the employer. The annual
limitation amount is sometimes called the "Social Security tax wage base
amount" or "Contribution and Benefit Base." Above the annual limit
amount, only the 1.45% Medicare tax is imposed. In terms of the
effective rate, this means that a worker earning $20,000 for 2006 pays
at a 7.65% effective rate ($1,530) while a worker earning $200,000 pays
at an effective rate of about 4.37% ($8,740).
Self employed people pay the entire 15.3%, although they are allowed to
deduct one-half of this amount from their total income when they file
income taxes.[4] Above these payroll taxes presumably pay into the
Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare Trust Funds that they will then
draw on when the worker grows older.
And just where is all the SS money going? It's going to pay the
bills for that surge of spending (remember the medicare drug bill, a
trillion dollar war), rather than from the tax base. In other words,
it's being pissed away. Your kind of loonie doesn't give a rats ass
about debt and debt payments. Just as long as more money can be printed
and borrowed. And you see nothing wrong with that?
The money to pay off this economic fiasco can't come from the poor or
even the middle income. There isn't enough money there. The only
sufficient source of funds is with those who have %80 of the money and
they aren't exactly hurting no matter how much they are squealing.
But go ahead and blame it on the poor, if it makes you feel better.
Jeff
clams_casino
>On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:32:00 -0500, clams_casino
><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>jdoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't understand the losers like you who don't realize that the top
>>>10% of earners in the US pay about 95% of the taxes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Care to provide ANY reference to support such a wild statement? Or is
>>that a Rush statistic?
>>
>>In 2004, the top 10% paid $567B of the $832B dollars of federal income
>>taxes collected in 2004 (68%). Of course, that's only federal income
>>tax.
>>
>>http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/pr.pdf shows the top 1% pay about 7% in
>>state and local taxes vs. about 10% for average earners.
>>
>>Furthermore, average earners pay about 7.7% for FICA taxes vs. 0.8% for
>>the top 1% (taxed income is capped at about $90,000)
>>
>>When you factor in all taxes, the percent taxes paid by the wealthy
>>tend to be quite similar to others. Bottom line, the wealthy pay more
>>taxes simply because they have more of the wealth / have higher incomes,
>>but the percentage tends to be relatively similar.
>>
>>For example, the top 1% pay about 23.5% of their income in Federal
>>taxes, 5% in State/local taxes and 0.8% in FICA taxes or about 29.3% of
>>income.
>>
>>The average payer pays about 13.5% in Fed taxes, 7% in state/local taxes
>>and 7.7% in FICA taxes (likely 9-15% for dual wage earning families) or
>>about 28.2% of income (higher for duel income households)
>>
>>Of course, there are also many perks for the wealthy that average people
>>tend not to enjoy, including typically $14k+ tax-free medical care, very
>>gracious home ownership tax subsidies, various business perks (tax free
>>meals at the finest restaurants, preferred / free seating at sporting
>>events, free use of cars), etc.
>>
>>
>for some real facts visit www.taxfoundation.org/
>__________________________________________
>Never argue with an idiot.
>They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
>
>
Your statistic should read "the top 10% of earners pay about 70% of the
Federal incomes taxes" - http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/irsdata.shtml
Some additional statistics are that an income of >104K in 2005 qualified
for the top 10% with about 45% of the income.
Of course, that says nothing about the total taxes paid as Federal
income taxes are only about 1/3 of the total taxes. If you were to
figure in social security, sales, excise, property, etc, you'll find
most tend to pay close to the the same as a percentage of their total
income.
The typical problem with those who complaint about tax fairness is that
most will tend to only look at Federal incomes taxes (which do effect
the wealthy most) and (conveniently) ignore the total tax distribution,
but refer to taxes when they are only talking about Federal income taxes.
Rod Speed
That last is mindlessly silly.
And even if it was true, you havent established that the percentage
being the same is what makes the tax system overall 'fair' anyway.
h
>
> I don't understand the losers like you who don't realize that the top
> 10% of earners in the US pay about 95% of the taxes.
> want tax cuts fir them but not for the people who are actually paying
> the taxes
Huh? How am I not paying "my fair share"? I am self employed and live in NY
(boonies, upstate-horrendously high percentage of tax). I pay $13,000 a
year in taxes between state and federal income plus school and property on a
gross income of $30,000 and a 2 bedroom/1 bath house (1,500 sq) assessed at
$79,000 (full value), that I bought for $45,000 in 1991. How is 43% of my
GROSS income not "paying my fair share"? Are you insane? Maybe if I'd
decided to be a high-school dropout and had kids instead of going to college
and being self-supporting I'd be getting some deductions, ya think? Do you
really think that any of the super rich fork over 43% of THEIR gross income
every year in taxes? I didn't think so. It's not the dollars, it's the
percentage, stupid!!
SpammersDie
<h> wrote in message news:4775b371$0$16645$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Why? "Percentages" don't pay the bills. Dollars do. Even if we accept your
unproven assertion that the "super rich" aren't paying anywhere near the
same percentage, they're still contributing far more dollars than you to the
kitty.
clams_casino
Well duh. You get a gold star. 30% of $1M > 30% of $30k.
Not the brightest star in the sky, are you?
h
>
> Not the brightest star in the sky, are you?
He just doesn't get it. Of course the super rich are paying in more dollars.
However, they are paying a lower percentage, and they certainly don't miss
the money. If you're going to base taxes on percentage of income, then
everyone should pay out the same percentage. It would be better if taxes
were flat rate, with no deductions. You make X, you pay Y, no matter what
you own or how many dependents you have.
SpammersDie
<h> wrote in message news:4776584c$0$28875$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Of course the super rich are paying in more dollars.
And hence, the "super rich" are the ones paying more than their fair share.
You are not, contrary to your haughty OP.
It *is* the dollars that matter, not the percentages.
Janie
<h> wrote in message news:4776584c$0$28875$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
What, have everybody pay the same percentage without any deductions! Hey, I
love your idea. Now, we just have a couple of problems to solve before we
can put that system in place: Get the IRS people and all the tax accountants
to accept the idea and get Congress to agree to the plan. If the system is
easy then the vast majority of tax people will become unemployed. How do we
get the system to make taxes simple when so many people have a major
interest in seeing things remain as complicated as possible?
>
>
>
George
> How do we
> get the system to make taxes simple when so many people have a major
> interest in seeing things remain as complicated as possible?
>>
>>
>
>
Have a sales tax *only* system. From what I have read it would need to
be ~ 35% . The first thing that would happen is that people would react
to the high rate when they purchased something because the government
would have no other method to pull money out of your pocket such as the
$15 from your cell phone etc so government spending would be in a
spotlight because all taxes would be applied in one place.
It would be totally fair because if you have the ability to buy more
stuff you can afford the tax. The sales tax would have the same
exemptions most do now for items such as unprepared food.
It would also massively simplify accounting and collection since there
wouldn't be thousands of conditions inserted into the tax laws.
Dennis
wrote:
>Have a sales tax *only* system. From what I have read it would need to
>be ~ 35% . The first thing that would happen is that people would react
>to the high rate when they purchased something because the government
>would have no other method to pull money out of your pocket such as the
>$15 from your cell phone etc so government spending would be in a
>spotlight because all taxes would be applied in one place.
>
>It would be totally fair because if you have the ability to buy more
>stuff you can afford the tax. The sales tax would have the same
>exemptions most do now for items such as unprepared food.
>
>
>It would also massively simplify accounting and collection since there
>wouldn't be thousands of conditions inserted into the tax laws.
Another added benefit is that it would also provide some tax revenue
from the underground economy that goes mostly untaxed now. Drug
dealers, white collar criminals with offshore accounts and the
under-the-table cash-only crowd have to buy things too.
Dennis (evil)
--
What government gives, it must first take away.
h
> It would be totally fair because if you have the ability to buy more
> stuff you can afford the tax. The sales tax would have the same exemptions
> most do now for items such as unprepared food.
Agreed, although the doofus who thinks that unless you are mega-rich you're
not paying your "fair share" would chastise the rest of us for not consuming
enough.
h
> about federal income taxes.
Umm, yeah, that's included in there, too. Since I'm self-employed they take
15% off the top to start, not just the 7.5% the wage slaves pay. And, since
when is $30,000 "so little"? It's more than I made in the corporate cube
farm.
Marsha
> 15k a year working a few hours a week in the winter and 25 hours a
> week in the summer. my property taxes are almost 20k a year.
> __________________________________________
20k a year??? Do you own half of California? I'm never going to
complain about my taxes again.
Marsha/Ohio
clams_casino
Biggest problem with going to all all sales tax is that the IRS would
likely have to be increased a good 10-20X to oversee all the additional
fraud.
Read somewhere recently that the IRS knows about 99% of all income
(business are only too glad to report all income as it becomes their
deduction), but only have full knowledge of some 70% of all sales.
Second problem is that total US taxes are some $3.6T with current sales
taxes only about $0.5T of that total. To replace all taxes with sales
taxes, the rate would likely have to be increased to something like
40% - just to be revenue neutral and assuming their was no increased
fraud (NOT likely). Can you think of a better way to tank the US economy?
Furthermore, that increased fraud would likely end up making the IRS
become the largest US employer to make the system equitable.
clams_casino
If you believe that, I have a line of watches & shoes I'd like to sell
you.