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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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

Huh? I don't think I've proposed anything.

The AMT eliminates basically all exemptions, except home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. If you're concerned about equity, expanding the number of things one can take deductions for is a good way. But, we've done that--it's called the income tax. Why would you retain the AMT, but allow people to deduct HMI and state taxes, which, based on a quick review of
recent data, provide about 2/3 of all deductions, when it would make far more sense to eliminate the the numerous other deductions that give rise to concern about people paying too little income tax? That is, if you believe that people should be able to deduct HMI, state taxes, and charitable giving no matter what (i.e., regardless of whether they're under AMT or not), then you must believe that anyone who can use those deductions to eliminate (or nearly eliminate) income tax liability is not doing anything wrong or "paying too little". Given that, your focus should be on the "other" deductions--why not eliminate those instead (I have no idea what they might be), and avoid the existing "dual" system whereby people have to calcualte their tax liability, and then calculate it again?

Now, care to tell me why the R's are wrong to want to get rid of the corporate AMT? You know exactly why they're doing it, and it's the same thing the D's would do if confronted with a proposal to raise teh minimum wage 50c--reject it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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.

No, it would be the communistic taxes of your home state. You want the federal government to subsidize your choice to live in a high-tax, high-service state?

How would there be a secondary effect? They're deductible either way.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Huh? I don't think I've proposed anything.

The AMT eliminates basically all exemptions, except home mortgage interest and charitable deductions. If you're concerned about equity, expanding the number of things one can take deductions for is a good way. But, we've done that--it's called the income tax. Why would you retain the AMT, but allow people to deduct HMI and state taxes, which, based on a quick review of
recent data, provide about 2/3 of all deductions, when it would make far more sense to eliminate the the numerous other deductions that give rise to concern about people paying too little income tax? That is, if you believe that people should be able to deduct HMI, state taxes, and charitable giving no matter what (i.e., regardless of whether they're under AMT or not), then you must believe that anyone who can use those deductions to eliminate (or nearly eliminate) income tax liability is not doing anything wrong or "paying too little". Given that, your focus should be on the "other" deductions--why not eliminate those instead (I have no idea what they might be), and avoid the existing "dual" system whereby people have to calcualte their tax liability, and then calculate it again?

Now, care to tell me why the R's are wrong to want to get rid of the corporate AMT? You know exactly why they're doing it, and it's the same thing the D's would do if confronted with a proposal to raise teh minimum wage 50c--reject it.

The AMT is a useful way to balance a system where we have a multiplicity of tax incentives; yes, if you'd like, it is possible to eliminate some of those incentives, but the Rs have not put that on the table (except for a handful of members without traction in their own party who put it on the table together with a complete rewrite of the tax code and budget).

State tax deductions are the single most obvious candidate to pull out of the add-backs. They are not optional, and they are charges to income and so costs of producing income.

The Rs can block reasonable reform now and run as a party that says to hell with them all, while Democrats point out that they pushed reasonable reform blocked by the Rs. Or, the Rs can pursue bipartisan policy changes that both help a lot of people and make sense.

So have the Rs managed to get a clean bill on the floor giving an upward minimum wage adjustment that the Dems have stopped?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The AMT is a useful way to balance a system where we have a multiplicity of tax incentives; yes, if you'd like, it is possible to eliminate some of those incentives, but the Rs have not put that on the table (except for a handful of members without traction in their own party who put it on the table together with a complete rewrite of the tax code and budget).

State tax deductions are the single most obvious candidate to pull out of the add-backs. They are not optional, and they are charges to income and so costs of producing income.

The Rs can block reasonable reform now and run as a party that says to hell with them all, while Democrats point out that they pushed reasonable reform blocked by the Rs. Or, the Rs can pursue bipartisan policy changes that both help a lot of people and make sense.

So have the Rs managed to get a clean bill on the floor giving an upward minimum wage adjustment that the Dems have stopped?

Babe, both the AMT and the regular one are both income taxes. So your weird statement about "charges to income" is just bizarre. I mean, a given amount of food and housing expenses are not "optional" and we don't get to deduct that stuff. Your whole thing here seems to be "I don't want to pay the AMT, and state/local taxes are pushing me over that line, so they should not be added back for AMT purposes, and I need to come up with some other crap to say so I don't sound totally self-centered and selfish."

Wanker, save us?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Babe, both the AMT and the regular one are both income taxes. So your weird statement about "charges to income" is just bizarre. I mean, a given amount of food and housing expenses are not "optional" and we don't get to deduct that stuff. Your whole thing here seems to be "I don't want to pay the AMT, and state/local taxes are pushing me over that line, so they should not be added back for AMT purposes, and I need to come up with some other crap to say so I don't sound totally self-centered and selfish."

Wanker, save us?

Come, come now. There is a difference between housing, where you get to choose where you live and how much you spend, and a cost that comes off the top, like a state income tax. And I have no idea what this "both income taxes" statement is - it was kind of the point I was making.

For example, I'd much more readily see the home mortgage interest deduction as a preference item than state taxes. Burger argues that those who choose to live in a state with an income tax should pay the freight, and it is that blue state/red state issue I think has more to do with why this reform has stalled than anything. But, my income comes from a blue state; if he were a partner in my firm, he would discover the same cost of doing business in the same state, even though he might live in a state without an income tax.

My first candidate for tax reform would actually not be the AMT, but instead the phaseouts - and this is the item that affects charitables (apologies, I was mixing funky tax complexities).

The net impact of the phaseouts, a higher marginal rate at a lower income bracket, is, I think, the biggest inequity in the current tax system.

So, Fringie, are you joining the flat-tax crowd here or something?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, Fringie, are you joining the flat-tax crowd here or something?

You are doing a very bad imitation of a D Karl Rove.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So have the Rs managed to get a clean bill on the floor giving an upward minimum wage adjustment that the Dems have stopped?

Yes. They proposed a lower increase after Kennedy's higher increase was rejected. The D's rejected it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Come, come now. There is a difference between housing, where you get to choose where you live and how much you spend, and a cost that comes off the top, like a state income tax. And I have no idea what this "both income taxes" statement is - it was kind of the point I was making.

For example, I'd much more readily see the home mortgage interest deduction as a preference item than state taxes. Burger argues that those who choose to live in a state with an income tax should pay the freight, and it is that blue state/red state issue I think has more to do with why this reform has stalled than anything. But, my income comes from a blue state; if he were a partner in my firm, he would discover the same cost of doing business in the same state, even though he might live in a state without an income tax.

My first candidate for tax reform would actually not be the AMT, but instead the phaseouts - and this is the item that affects charitables (apologies, I was mixing funky tax complexities).

The net impact of the phaseouts, a higher marginal rate at a lower income bracket, is, I think, the biggest inequity in the current tax system.

So, Fringie, are you joining the flat-tax crowd here or something?

BS. Plenty of people live in New Hampshire but work in Massachusetts in part for the exact reason they want to pay lower income taxes (put aside that they pay it in property taxes). It's just as much a choice where you live as the type of house you live in. I can't believe you're making an argument to the contrary.

Plus, even if it's not a "choice", shouldn't you be taxed on the implicit income of the free services you receive from the state that result from higher taxes? For example, the higher taxes mean better schools, which means less need for private education, which means more money for other things, as compared to someone who gets shitty public education and needs to spring for private/parochial school

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BS. Plenty of people live in New Hampshire but work in Massachusetts in part for the exact reason they want to pay lower income taxes (put aside that they pay it in property taxes). It's just as much a choice where you live as the type of house you live in. I can't believe you're making an argument to the contrary.

Plus, even if it's not a "choice", shouldn't you be taxed on the implicit income of the free services you receive from the state that result from higher taxes? For example, the higher taxes mean better schools, which means less need for private education, which means more money for other things, as compared to someone who gets shitty public education and needs to spring for private/parochial school

Hint: you don't get rid of Mass. income taxes on income earned in Mass. by moving to NH. I kind of like the imputed income from government services idea. You have a lively imagination.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes. They proposed a lower increase after Kennedy's higher increase was rejected. The D's rejected it.

Wait, you're talking about the 85 page bill that conditioned an increase on lots of exemptions from minimum wage and made all kinds of other changes in the wage and labor laws?

Nice try.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are doing a very bad imitation of a D Karl Rove.

Look, babe, I know it's a tough day, but take it out on someone else. Or stop babbling. Either way.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hint: you don't get rid of Mass. income taxes on income earned in Mass. by moving to NH.

Fair point. It works differently in the DC area. That notwithstanding, what you're basically complaining about is that you have decided to work and live in a high-tax state, when there are plenty of low-tax states. Would your life change if you made a different choice? Sure. One thing is for sure--you would pay lower income taxes. I just don't see how you can claim it's less of a choice than other activities for which there are or are not tax credits/deductions.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Wait, you're talking about the 85 page bill that conditioned an increase on lots of exemptions from minimum wage and made all kinds of other changes in the wage and labor laws?

Nice try.

I'm saying that when the issue was raised by democrats, by trying to amend a bill with a higher minimum wage, it didn't garner sufficient votes. Then, when the R's proposed a similar amendment, but with a smaller increase in the minimum wage, it was rejected by D's.

Nice try to you on complaining that the R's are obstructionist solely because they didn't have a vote on only an increase to the minimum wage and nothing else. This is politics, not church.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair point. It works differently in the DC area.

I find this surprising - who levies an income tax only on residents, while letting nonresidents earn the same amount in the same place without paying taxes?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Nice try to you on complaining that the R's are obstructionist solely because they didn't have a vote on only an increase to the minimum wage and nothing else. This is politics, not church.

I suspect the Dems would be happy to give the Rs a clean vote on AMT reform.

All I was saying was that there was no offer by the Rs to give a lower raise in the minimum wage that the Dems opposed. What the Rs put on the table was not what the Ds put on the table with a lower number - there were 85 pages of other items.

The Republican's put something on the table meant to block the minimum wage, but give members for whom it would be politically difficult some cover.

So, if you don't think there are tax issues like AMT reform where there can be some bipartisan legislation, what do you think will move next session? Only immigration reform?