AMT "reform": even worse than the status quo!
Latest word on what the Democrats are planning to offer as an "AMT reform":
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/070425/042507_amt_reform_dems.html?.v=1
http://greeneyeshade.townhall.com/blog/g/c543c409-28db-4bd7-831a-18895d9...
Bottom line: what they giveth with the one hand, they taketh away with the other.
A real AMT reform would recognize that the AMT is, very simply, a stealth tax. It hits people who weren't expecting to pay it. The solution is not to "fix" the stealth tax so that it hits a different group of people -- the solution is to *repeal* the stealth tax and (if necessary) replace it with a more transparent form of taxation.
My preference would be a straightforward repeal not coupled with any tax hikes elsewhere. Yes, there would be a revenue loss compared to the CBO "baseline budget scenario"; so be it. The baseline budget scenario is one where the tax burden as % of GDP is on an automatic escalator every year. Just look at the numbers (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7731&sequence=0 ): under the baseline scenario, which assumes expiration of the Bush tax cuts and no AMT "fix", the tax burden automatically grows to 20.1% of GDP from the current 18.4%. It would continue growing further in the years after 2017. One of the main reasons for this is that the AMT is not indexed to inflation, so in the baseline scenario, more and more people pay AMT each year.
Yes, this would increase the deficit; so be it. In the short term, the deficit is not a big problem right now. The real problem is the long-run explosion in the costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We need to rein in the cost of those programs (for example, by indexing the ages of eligibility for SS and Medicare to changes in life expectancy, so that each generation collects approximately the same number of years of benefits as the previous generation).
A second best option would be to pay for AMT repeal by eliminating deductions from the normal tax code. One great option would be to get rid of the deduction for state and local income taxes. Another few possibilities would be to curtail the mortgage interest deduction, or to make employer-provided health insurance a taxable fringe benefit, or to start taxing "private activity bonds" as regular income and not just AMT income.
A third best option would be to pay for AMT repeal by bumping up the normal tax rates a bit. Maybe increase the 28%, 33%, and 35% brackets each by 1-2% or something like that. Not ideal, but still a big improvement over the status quo.
While we're at it, let's make permanent the Bush tax cuts' repeal of two other little-known stealth taxes: PEP (the Personal Exemption Phaseout) and Pease (the itemized deduction phaseout). These ridiculous stealth taxes start taking away your exemptions and deductions once your income goes above a certain level. Congress could have achieved almost exactly the same result by fiddling with the brackets themselves (for example, Pease is basically just a hidden 3% hike to the upper tax brackets), but in their infinite wisdom, they chose to pass a stealth tax hike instead (to make it look like they weren't raising taxes as much as they really were). The Bush tax cuts wisely repeal these two provisions, but unfortunately the repeal expires in 2011.
Any of my AMT repeal proposals, of course, would vastly simplify the tax code. I don't know how many people reading this thread have paid AMT, but I have. It's almost comically ridiculous in its complexity. One year you pay AMT and file an extra form saying how much extra AMT you owed beyond your normal tax. The next year, in some cases, depending on *why* exactly you paid AMT the previous year (some AMT items are considered "timing-related" whereas others are not), you may earn AMT credits and eventually may get the AMT all back (except in some really weird cases where you get it back so slowly that you'll die long before your AMT credit is wiped out). Of course you have to file yet *another* form (in addition to the normal AMT form) to keep track of how much AMT credit you have earned and how much AMT credit you are getting back this year.
- lordzorgon's diary
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
I'll take option three
but I'd also be ok with indexing it to inflation, which apparently would cost
around $370 billion over ten years, or with the (potentially revenue neutral) soak-the-rich proposal you link =)
I agree with the philosophy of simplifying the tax code. If that means people are more likely to complain about the actual rates (once they become transparent) then maybe it'll spark some needed discussion on spending and taxation. OTOH people are moving away from doing taxes by hand, and if everything is entered in a program (or done by an accountant) there is less likelihood of error, so as a practical matter we may be coping with tax code complexity through technology while we wait for reform.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What form of taxationis fair to you?
If you want a flat tax, actuaries have said that they'd have to set a 19% rate WITH NO DEDUCTIONS FOR ANYONE. Kiss off the mortgage deduction. Kids at home? You picked 'em, you pay for them....completely.
If you want a VAT, well, that's just a national sales tax. That's the most regressive tax to poorer americans (and middle class) than any taxation program out there.
The AMT came into being because too many Bill Gates where bringing down multiple millions each year and paying ZERO in Federal taxes. The AMT can be fixed. But probably not by the mean's you've linked to.
I could live with that...
A 19% rate would no deductions is something I could live with. That's (roughly) 6% more income per paycheck for the Amerage AmericanTM. That being said, I haven't had to pay the AMT yet, but it's pretty shameful that it's beginning to hit people who are nowhere close to "rich." For the life of me I still don't know how AMT works or if I would qualify.
Of the options listed above, I think I could live with the option of paying a slightly higher tax rate, but only if were to last a couple years. However, because a "couple years" to Congress translates into a could decades, I don't see that happening. I'm fear that taxes will be going UP over the long term anyway and not down. Neither the Ds nor the Rs seem to care very much about spending as long as the electorate doesn't care, and no one holds them accountable as long as they get their government bribes.
I mean, think about it--if you were gauranteed a couple billion dollars to spend as you see fit year after year, with gauranteed increases in spending limits much higher than inflation, and you then have the option of using the Government's equivalent of the AMEX Black Card
you probably wouldn't be too concerned about spending either.
Bottom line, I actually don't care how much it costs to repeal the AMT. It's another "tax on the rich" gone wrong. I just think it should be gone and Congress should just be upfront and make the necessary spending cuts (or just push it onto the growing National Debt like we always do). Just phase out the AMT and adjust accordingly.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I'm in the 25% bracket.
But then again, I did get some deductions, but not many.
TurboTax said I was almost at the AMT level. Not yet though.
I wonder how a 19% flat tax (with no deductions) would effect those folks who have money on Municipal Bonds & Treasury Bonds that currently pay no income taxes?
The loss of the children deduction & the mortgage deduction would make the middle class scream bloody murder though. I don't see any of our political types being willing to stand up and suggest they forget about those deductions for the common good.
I'm happy with the 5 step progressive tax. I grew up with Nelson Rockefeller as my governor, lived in the same town as his family in fact, and every single year he paid no federal taxes. That was unfair.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I am no Bill Gates. :-)
I can most assuredly say that I am no where near the income generator that Bill Gates is. I would be a mere decimal point on his scale. Yet I am forced to pay the AMT.
I would very much prefer a 19% tax rate with no deductions to what I have now. I could have filled my taxes out in 5 minutes under that system (as opposed to 2 days under the current one) and saved $300 to boot. Withholding would be trivial, and dead on accurate.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +419% rate with no deductions sounds fine to me
That sounds like a big improvement over the status quo.
Right now something like 40% of the population pays no income tax *at all*, or even a negative income tax. That's a big problem, because it means 40% of the population has nothing to gain and everything to lose from shrinking the size of the government. That's 40% of the population that can probably be counted on to reliably support expansions in the size of the government. A very bad thing for the future of the country.
Evidence: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1916.html
(but that's tax filers only -- there are also people who don't make enough money to file in the first place)
The AMT is evil.
It is just another way to punish achievement in this country. Work hard, pay your (regular) taxes along the way, and if you are lucky you make something of yourself. Your reward? A bigger tax bill.
I have paid AMT for a couple of years now. I completely agree with the comment that it is "comically ridiculous in its complexity." That is an excellent way to put it.
I am STILL not certain that I have filled it all out 100% correctly. Knowing how to calculate the various "AMT Adjustments" is nearly impossible, and you can't get any decent explanations for them either. The IRS publications are woefully inadequate to the task.
If I have the unfortunate luck to be audited and they decide that I have filed something incorrectly (due to the complexity of AMT) I fully expect them to confiscate my home and put me out on the street. Our government tax dollars at work.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you have a good
tax guy, he can help you watch for flags that trigger it and try and avoid them. I heard it was partly your amount owed on your morgage that and how high your payments are and then it is not allowed as a deductible.
The problem is the govt would lose quite a bit of revenue without it. And they refuse to reshuffle the tax burden to those that can more afford it.
I agree it should be changed.
It's weird what the triggers are. It's like a stealth tax.
I'm only half stupid