Kandahar

Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have called for the repeal of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT is basically designed to prevent wealthy people from taking excessive deductions, by making them pay some minimum amount if their regular tax bill would be less than that. However, in recent years, more and more people have been affected by the AMT, some of whom are merely upper-middle class and not wealthy. Since it is not adjusted for inflation, the AMT affects more and more people every year.

On the other hand, repealing the AMT would cost our government about $100 billion per year at a time when we're already running an enormous deficit.

What do you think should be done?

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

ARealConservative

repeal and gut spending to offset.

taxedout

It is basically designed to do exactly what it has been doing.
repeal it.
Prohibit deficit spending.

__________________

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Remould it nearer to the hearts desire!

Kandahar

A nice idea, but not very realistic.

ARealConservative

How reastic is it to put all our emphasis on the revenue side of the equation?

Our entire focus needs to change in this regard. Focus on how much we have to spend and determine what is essential and what isn't.

I know, I know. Not realistic. What is realistic isn't very comforting though - consider nothing except an increase in taxes.

Iriemon

I definitately agree the Govt needs to cut spending. But what to do until that happens? Keep running up the debt?

I reckon if taxes were raised enough to cover spending, and people felt the cost of the spending including the wars which now are painless to tax payers, you'd see a whole lot more focus on what the government is spending.

As long as the Govt just keeps borrowing from China, there is no pain to taxpayers and therefore no incentive to cut spending.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

ARealConservative

Don't forget about printing money, we seem to love doing that too.

I wish this were so easy, I would be all for it. Unfortunately a heavily progressive tax system also prevents a majority of voters from experiencing the real burden of this spending. In that regard, our debt (and printing of new money) is the great equalizer. The inflation it causes is shared by all (even foreign countries share this hidden tax )

galenrox

I'd say repeal it, and then go back over the tax code and make sure all of the potential deductions are warranted. In making a potential tax deduction, you're acknowledging that we receive a social benefit from your money going there, and you are thusly compensated for that social benefit by paying less in taxes. If all potential deductions are as they should be, then we shouldn't have a problem with a billionaire doing enough to get enough deductions to not pay a dime in taxes, since in doing what's necessary to receive said deductions s/he already paid what s/he owes.

But in the real world, tax law isn't that well written, but I'd question the logic of passing new laws to take off the pressure to write them well. Stop ****ing up and it won't be a problem, and thus you should still repeal it.

__________________

Iriemon

That is the Fed, not the Govt, and it has done a reasonable job controlling the money supply, in my opinion. The deficits have been largely financed by borrowing from China and our SS trust fund, not by expanding the money supply.

Debt doesn't cause inflation. It causes an interest expense, which is now exceeding $400 billion every year. This rapidly growing element of Govt expenditure will ultimately require an increase of taxes. Upon whom will depend on who has power when it is passed.

But your atittude is typical of the pass the buck generation and our legacy of debt to future Americans. I personally find it immoral and disgraceful to purposely pass the cost of *our* government to future taxpayers, but your view seemed to be the majority, at least until recently while the Republicans were in control.. Hopefully the Dems will have the balls to do the right thing with their pay-go proposal, but I'm not holding my breath.

ARealConservative

This might require a seperate thread to do justice but I definitely take exception to this.

1) The dollar is currently at a 14 year low verses the pound and its slide vs the yen and Euro continues as well. You have to blame much of that on the fed.

2) This is a fiat monetary policy, how do you differentiate between new money printed or the money borrowed? I think we can both agree without a huge debt the fed wouldn't need to to print money at such a feverish rate.


This attitude is somewhat defeatist in nature but I've long stopped accepting blame for the debt being passed on. For a majority of my life I've been forced to assist in programs that violate my principals and no end is in sight.

Introduce a system where spending is actually based on revenue projections, then I could agree to making a concerted effort to reduce our debt. Otherwise, I'm done trying to chase the pain and any attempts to shame me with barbs such as "the pass the buck generation" falls on deaf ears.