Would this new rule replace the AMT, or would it function as an alternative alternative minimum tax?
Printable View
Would this new rule replace the AMT, or would it function as an alternative alternative minimum tax?
The AMT does need to go (a more convoluted secret taxation system you could hardly devise), but sure replace it with higher progressive taxation, reduce deductions.
That's not exactly a fair comparison of tax rates, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
When the tax rates on "the extremely wealthy" were higher, the structure of the tax code itself was more-than-a-bit different, so simply loooking at notional rates doesn't tell you the story.
To compare honestly between different eras, you'd want to look at the actual effective rates paid, bottom-line.
As I suspect most people understand.
Ah yes, now we see it. It's unfair that some people have a great deal of wealth. We need to spread that wealth around....Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPassey
I do not understand the rationale of expecting the very poorest people in our society to have to pony up and pay more taxes than they already do. (Yes, they do pay taxes. Sales tax, gas tax, utility taxes, etc.) So many of them have multiple part time jobs with no benefits making minimum wage and must run households and raise children and pay health costs on those paltry hourly wages. Still, people want the poorest to cough up more and "pay their fair share" whatever that means. This mentality seems so utterly heartless to me.
after taking a big cut to run an inneficient government that pays for many worthless programs and a military machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
If the wealthy are taxed more it is not going to do a bit of good if spending is not cut as well. We have this giant deficit and need to bite the bullet. Do we really need a department of education and legislators making laws about schooling at the federal and state levels? If we simplify the tax code maybe the huge IRS budget can also be cut.
Sometimes we forget all the philanthropy that many wealthy people are involved in without first siphoning through our tax system and having someone else determine what the good causes are. Someone in my town gave $500,000 towards a new YMCA- I imagine they are quite wealthy to be able to do that. Many of our local businesses sponsor music performances, scholarships, baseball teams etc. The whole community benefits. If by doing so they pay less in taxes I am all for it.
There are a lot of good people doing a lot of good in this world spending money supporting good causes, paying for their kids education, helping their elderly parents, and helping establish programs that help people help themselves.
So what does that mean? Should the amount of tax you pay have any relation to the amount of government services you consume? Should we take money from those that have it just because they have it or should it matter how they got it? Which is more important, income or assets? What exactly do you think makes it a "fair" share?Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnys
Y'all are wrong! WRONG I TELL YOU!!!!!
The Buffet Rule means that you always take a clean plate when you go back for seconds, and never never never drool into the community food supply on a buffett line.
I really thought that you guys knew these things...
What's really funny is that within *minutes* of the Senate vote on this today, I received bulk emails from various progressive organizations complaining about the vote failing, and asking for funds to defeat The Forces Of Evil in the upcoming elections.
Go figure...
The whole issue is clearly yet another attempt to divide us all, to raise money for politicians, and to keep stirring the pot.
Oh, everybody knows that. This is about the sliding scale they charge you at the door. Half the diners eat for free and the few percent they dislike the most, who are already paying for 70 or so percent of the evenings meals, get to pay an additional premium for the privilege of dessert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily