A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
NATO's commander in Afghanistan says he doesn't have enough forces there.

• Nato does not have enough troops in Afghanistan to ensure an early victory over Taliban militants, the alliance's military commander in the country said on Wednesday.
  
  "If you said to me, if your aim is to win, I'd say no. I haven't got enough [to] win this, say, in the next six months, but I can continue to make sufficient improvements to keep the people here confident in us and in their government," General David Richards said in an interview with the Financial Times.

you read that as saying he could use 100000 more troops? he needs to quadrupal his forces?

322-7?

Here's the problem. I'm keeping track of the real world, like the NFL. you keep score like a fantasy league.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you read that as saying he could use 100000 more troops?

No, just that he could use more.

Though I'm sure he could find uses for them.

[dc_chef]

What's the likelihood that the new Congress will eliminate the alternative minimum tax? The Washington Post suggests that it's an issue with relatively high priority. Good thing, I say, seeing that the Post reports, "[t]he impact is harshest on taxpayers with annual incomes of $100,000 to $500,000."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by dc_chef
What's the likelihood that the new Congress will eliminate the alternative minimum tax? The Washington Post suggests that it's an issue with relatively high priority. Good thing, I say, seeing that the Post reports, "[t]he impact is harshest on taxpayers with annual incomes of $100,000 to $500,000."

It's going to be an interesting debate. The Dems want to fix it, not eliminate it. So the Dems might, for example, exclude state tax deductions as one of the "preferences" eliminated in calculating AMT, which would have a hugh impact on almost all of us (just as an example). The Republicans have been focused on elimination instead - if they can't get rid of the whole thing, including the corporate AMT, they don't want to get rid of the part that hurts middle-to-high income people in high tax blue states like NY, Mass., and California.

The Republicans could never find their way to a workable compromise. It would be nice if the Dems could, which probably means conceding some part of Republican priorities. Right now, it makes no sense that the effective marginal tax rate for the average $150-250,000 household is significantly higher than the effective marginal tax rate for the average $1 million household.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's going to be an interesting debate. The Dems want to fix it, not eliminate it.

That suggests it's fixable. Why not target the deductions that create a need at all for the AMT? Eliminate those, and the rationale for the AMT in teh first place (too many deductions allowing the "rich" to pay too little) should disappear.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That suggests it's fixable. Why not target the deductions that create a need at all for the AMT? Eliminate those, and the rationale for the AMT in teh first place (too many deductions allowing the "rich" to pay too little) should disappear.

I think much of the problem is not the categories of deductions themselves (for example, depreciation deductions make sense as a cost of doing business), but rather the heightened level of deductions that have been permitted, usually as a result of compromise between multiple perfectly defensible positions. So, it is likely that straight line depreciation doesn't fairly represent the way most property depreciates. On the other hand, the accelerated depreciation offerred by the tax code is likely too generous for many kinds of property. I would never propose getting rid of depreciation deductions; and, I would argue that something more generous than straight line is usually appropriate, though how much so will vary on an asset by asset basis.

The AMT is a way of saying that there is a limit to one's use of heightened tax benefits like accelerated depreciation, and it's a perfectly sound concept for a world (e.g., the real world) where the tax code can't ultimately be so detailed as to capture all the economic detail in every business. So, you can target the deductions all you want, but unless you want to challenge the fact of the income tax as an income tax, rather than a gross receipts tax, I think the AMT will still have merit.

Besides which, the Dems might, given their recent victory and the current leadership's honeymoon period, be capable of comprehensive tax code revision, but I doubt the Republicans, with divided leadership and a weak White House, would be capable of it. It would take two disciplined parties to tackle such an approach, and I'm not certain we have even one at this point.

(FYI, apologies to Hank - I know it makes your head hurt when we discuss policy issues).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think much of the problem is not the categories of deductions themselves (for example, depreciation deductions make sense as a cost of doing business), but rather the heightened level of deductions that have been permitted, usually as a result of compromise between multiple perfectly defensible positions. So, it is likely that straight line depreciation doesn't fairly represent the way most property depreciates. On the other hand, the accelerated depreciation offerred by the tax code is likely too generous for many kinds of property. I would never propose getting rid of depreciation deductions; and, I would argue that something more generous than straight line is usually appropriate, though how much so will vary on an asset by asset basis.

The AMT is a way of saying that there is a limit to one's use of heightened tax benefits like accelerated depreciation, and it's a perfectly sound concept for a world (e.g., the real world) where the tax code can't ultimately be so detailed as to capture all the economic detail in every business. So, you can target the deductions all you want, but unless you want to challenge the fact of the income tax as an income tax, rather than a gross receipts tax, I think the AMT will still have merit.

Besides which, the Dems might, given their recent victory and the current leadership's honeymoon period, be capable of comprehensive tax code revision, but I doubt the Republicans, with divided leadership and a weak White House, would be capable of it. It would take two disciplined parties to tackle such an approach, and I'm not certain we have even one at this point.

(FYI, apologies to Hank - I know it makes your head hurt when we discuss policy issues).

I didn't think depreciation was really a big thing with AMT anymore . . . but I'm not an AMT-y person.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That suggests it's fixable. Why not target the deductions that create a need at all for the AMT? Eliminate those, and the rationale for the AMT in teh first place (too many deductions allowing the "rich" to pay too little) should disappear.

Ask a rhetorical question...

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ask a rhetorical question...

I'm trying now to find statistics on how much add'l tax gets paid by AMT subcategory.

[Gattigap]

If you just can't get enough politics -- and really, among us, who can't? -- Melissa Block of NPR interviews two of the leading guys who do voiceovers for TV and radio political ads. And someone came up with the wonderful idea of giving these guys nursery-rhyme political ads for these guys to read on air.

Listen to it. Just -- listen to it. If for no other reason than understanding better just how Humpty Dumpty is Wrong on Wall-Sitting.

Gattigap

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think much of the problem is not the categories of deductions themselves (for example, depreciation deductions make sense as a cost of doing business), but rather the heightened level of deductions that have been permitted, usually as a result of compromise between multiple perfectly defensible positions.

Is that relevant to the individual AMT? Or, put differently, is this relevant to concerns that the AMT reaches a sizable percentage of upper-middle income taxpayers?

I think the concept of a corporate AMT is a joke, but that's largely because I think the idea of corporate taxes is a joke--they should be taxed at the individual taxpayer level. But I realize that would mean wonk couldn't afford to live any more.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is that relevant to the individual AMT? Or, put differently, is this relevant to concerns that the AMT reaches a sizable percentage of upper-middle income taxpayers?

I think the concept of a corporate AMT is a joke, but that's largely because I think the idea of corporate taxes is a joke--they should be taxed at the individual taxpayer level. But I realize that would mean wonk couldn't afford to live any more.

What the GOP has done is held up reasonable changes to the individual AMT based on their preference for eliminating the corporate AMT simultaneously.

But am I right that what you are proposing is eliminating or lowering indivudal deductions for state taxes or for individuals?

(edited to reflect Fringies helpful if curt input)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
No, depreciation deductions are relevant to the corporate AMT. And what the GOP has done is held up reasonable changes to the individual AMT based on their preference for eliminating the corporate AMT simultaneously.

But am I right that what you are proposing is eliminating or lowering indivudal deductions for state taxes or charitable contributions for individuals?

I know that charitable contributions remain deductible under the AMT.

I think you need to hook into a talking-points memo or something.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I know that charitable contributions remain deductible under the AMT.

I think you need to hook into a talking-points memo or something.

I checked and you are right - I could have sworn charitables were one of the things driving up my own AMT, but it may be that they are having some kind of secondary effect.

It also looks like depreciation is an add-back for both corporate and non-corporate taxpayers - so, good thing I've not been investing in any real estate development partnerships, since the current structure would disfavor that investment for me thanks to the AMT.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, just that he could use more.

Though I'm sure he could find uses for them.

so Iraq didn't divert anything from Afghanistan.

reistated 323-6