Brew1 wrote:

- quote -

Well, I THOUGHT I had seen it all before this year, but like
you said, or was it a Saturday night Live character? You
just never know.

So as I sip on my double dram of Balvenie Doublewood to
celebrate another successful tax season, I will

1. disagree on the age limit, since there are just too many
rich old people who still need to pay their share; however
I would advocate maybe added amounts of standard deduction
according to age: maybe
70-75 2000+
76-80 4000+ etc, you get the idea.
Oh, an no SE tax on anyone already drawing social security!

2. Abolish the ceiling on social security taxability. I
just hate it cause I have to pay income tax on 85% even
though that comes from a tax from post tax income.

3. AMT - double the minimums and then index for inflation.

ChEAr$$$$~~
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"LTSLLC" <lizcanotaxservicesllc[at]spymac.com> writes:

- quote -

Because "broke" and "insolvent" is being used to mean "not
enough money to pay the *current* level of benefits". It is
*not* being used to mean "unable to pay *any* benefits".
Those who use words like "broke" and "insolvent" want you to
think it's the latter, though.

Like I said, if once the SS "trust fund" is reduced to zero
SS were switched onto a pure pay-as-you-go system (in other
words benefits paid out are set equal to taxes paid in), the
resulting benefits would be 50-75% (depending on whose
estimates you believe) of what you'd get if the "trust fund"
were "fixed".

But this is getting a bit far afield of MTM and should
probably move elsewhere.

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

LTSLLC" <lizcanotaxservicesllc[at]spymac.com> wrote:

- quote -


- quote -

If the system "goes broke" we will all have much bigger
problems than just social security. Social security is
called "Old Age Insurance" but it is NOT an insurance plan.
It is, and always has been, a "pay as you go" system.

See my previous post for why I think it is policitally
impossible for social security to go away. Our politicians
have promised benefits to those reaching retirement age, now
or in the future, and are stuck with them. Voting to even
reduce benefits is political suicide and no politician wants
to commit suicide.

Social security benefits are an entitlement and cannot just
arbitrarily eliminated. What will have to be changed is the
funding -- not the benefits.

Lanny K. Williams, CPA
Nawarat, Williams & Co., Ltd.
Income Tax Services for Expatriate Americans

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Interesting post Brew1 and I wholeheartedly agree with some
changes.

1. Lower the age to 75 or so, and have it apply only for
those that have total income of about $50,000 or less.

2. By all means, raise the ceiling on taxable social
security, but also, remove wages (maybe only upt to $25,000
or $30,000) as counting towards the base amount. If someone
is drawing Social Security but is still forced to work just
to survive, then they shouldn't have to pay taxes on their
SS benefits.

3. Fix AMT so that it only applies to those wealthy
individuals that truely benefit from tax cuts/loopholes not
available to most taxpayers. Maybe do away with the
calculation and just change it to a flat amount. For
example, if someone makes $1,000,000 and only owes $30,000
in taxes, make the AMT a flat 10-15% of their total income.

Rich, how is JMc's statement a fiction? If the system goes
"broke", there won't be any benefits for JMc or anyone else
to collect. Just look at the recent reports that the
Medicare and SS trust funds will become insolvent by 2018
and 2040 respectively.

Rudy
www.LizcanoTaxServicesLLC.com

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- quote -

I believe the return shows that the firm that prepared his
taxes is in Texas. Interesting.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"JMc" <jmmc76[at]NOSPAM.gamebox.net> writes:

- quote -

*Sigh*

I was trying to point out, your facile glibness to the
contrary, that many other people besides the strawman rich
person in your original post get hit with the AMT. You
don't need a "huge vacation home" or "millions of dollars
worth of private activity bonds" to pay AMT.

For example, a married couple with three kids, $7,100 of
state income tax deducted from their pay, $6,000 of real
estate tax (easy to achieve in MA), $300 of personal
property tax, and combined (post-401k contribution) wages of
$124,000 will pay AMT.

Hardly the indolent rich your post gleefully envisions being raked by the AMT.

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Victor Roberts <xxx[at]lighting-research.com> wrote:

- quote -

I'll bet that it's Texas. They don't want to disclose it
because they didn't use it as his home state for the
elections. If they had he (the VP) would not have been
elected.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Ahh.. I see. However, living in PA with a working spouse
and two kids is safe, though. Must be that extra kid and
the wrong commonwealth that causes AMT.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"JMc" <jmmc76[at]NOSPAM.gamebox.net> wrote:

- quote -

That won't happen!

You may or may not be old enough to remember the 1964
election campaign. The rumor went around that Barry
Goldwater would cut the benefits of those receiving social
security (what he actually said was that he would reduce
"future" growth in benefits.) Exit polls indicated that
this was a major factor in his loss to Lyndon Johnson.
Nearly all voters at or near an age to draw benefits voted
against him.

Politicians learned a lesson from this. Senior citizens are
a powerful bloc of voters. Since senior citizens have
become a much larger portion of the population, than in
1964, this lesson is even more important now. No politician
who has any thought of getting reelected or of supporting
his party will want to vote against social security.

So, social security will not go away; we are stuck with this
untill and unless someone can come up with a better benefit.
True, the "funding" of the benefits may have to change but
the benefits themselves will not be eliminated.

Lanny K. Williams, CPA
Nawarat, Williams & Co., Ltd.
Income Tax Services for Expatriate Americans

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

And the fact that someone forgot to redact the phone number
of the third party who can be contacted to discuss the
Bush's return, but even the home state for Cheney is
redacted. Perhaps his "undisclosed location." ?

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Actually, I got a kick out of the fact that W. or the first
lady did not check the boxes to have $3 go to the
presidential campaign fund (or whatever those boxes are).

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"JMc" <jmmc76[at]NOSPAM.gamebox.net> writes:

- quote -

That's a fiction. Even if the system remains unchanged
and "goes broke", you'll still be getting around 70% of
the benefits you'd get if they "fix" it.

- quote -

Or live in Massachusetts and have a working spouse
and three kids.

--
Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

I disagree. I have prepared returns for people who are
almost 3 times my age and have RMD's that are almost 6 times
what I make. No tax going in, and no tax going out?
Doesn't sound right.

- quote -

Social Security should be taxable. I agree that the levels
should rise, but not by too much. Again, there are people
who are collecting social security that have an AGI almost 6
times mine. I guess I get a little sore when the social
security issue arises since I most likely wont get to
collect it. I'll spend 40 yrs of my life contributing my
6.2%, and when it is time to collect at age 67.5 or 70 or
Adam's age when he died (whatever the age limit will be
then), they'll tell me, "sorry, there is nothing left....
Thanks for paying, though."

- quote -

I think AMT is working fine. Just don't buy millions of
dollars worth of private activity bonds or a huge vacation
home in Kaiwah where you end up paying lots and lots of real
estate taxes.

Although, I'll change my tune when I become subject to AMT
or turn 85 and am receiving money from my 401(k) (i.e. I
shouldn't have to file a return).

Just make it fair. Although, I think it would be easier for
a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for
congress to make the tax system fair for everyone.

Hope everyone had an enjoyable tax season. Let's do it
again next year.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Brew1" <brew_one[at]e-mailanywhere.com> wrote:

- quote -

So in nine years Warren Buffett should be exempt from taxes?

--
D.F. Manno
dfm2a3l0t2[at]spymac.com
In the republic of mediocrity, genius is dangerous.
(Robert G. Ingersoll)

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Brew1" <brew_one[at]e-mailanywhere.com> wrote:

- quote -

2005 tax returns for George Bush and Dick Cheney have been
publicly disclosed and are posted on the Web. It's
interesting that neither of them paid AMT this year, even
with Cheney's $8 million income.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

I think I saw it all this year. Since I'm enjoying a
tumbler of Laphroig, I feel like sharing my wish list for
Congress:

1) set an age limit (circa 85) after which a person cannot
be required to file a return. I've seen way too many folks
who are no longer capable of keeping track of tax documents
(especially quarterly payments).

2) raise the ceiling on taxable social security. The
formula has been $25,000 and $32,000 for how many years?
Those receiving a state pension (that contains a cost of
living adjustment) pay more in taxes every year.

3) AMT--fix it! This is the most likely problem to be
addressed by Congress, mainly because more and more Senators
and Representatives (and their aides) are paying it.

Cheers!

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >