"rlsusenet[at]NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" wrote:
- quote -

That'ss my reaction when people talk about a flat tax.

- quote -

To what extent does the AMT have an effect on business
taxes? I'd think that personal taxes are a small part of
the problem, and the complexity and politics of business
taxes is the larger problem.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Tom Russ wrote:
- quote -

Actually, I heard an interesting editorial on (of all
places) NPR over the weekend. The point was that we already
have a pretty flat, simple federal tax. It's also the tax
more and more people are loving to hate: It's called AMT!

The suggestion is not to eliminate the AMT, it's to
eliminate everything BUT the AMT, and then adjust the rates
so that the same level of revenue is achieved.

Interesting suggestion.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

citizen_aver...[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

Probably the main reason is that Congress already tried that
and people got mad at them. There was a time when the
marginal rate structure looked something like this:

============
=========== ====================

This was known as the infamous "bubble" in the rate
structure, but it did exactly what you wish for.
Unfortunately, it was too obvious and understandable, so
talk radio among other sources was able to rally
opposition to it.

The result is that the rate structure was modified, and
much the same effect achieved by introducing various
phaseouts, each with a different threshold and reduction
rate. That was then so mind-numbingly complex that it
could not be explained in the required number of words to
rally opposition. And so it remains today.

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Benjamin Yazersky CPA" <johndoe[at]nowhere.com> wrote:
- quote -

Yes, inflation, among other things, is the politician's
friend.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

<citizen_average[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Welcome to tax simplification

How to raise taxes by doing anything and everything except
actually changing the rate

___________________________________
<<< Benjamin Yazersky, CPA [NJ & NY] > > -----> real address on hobokeni or hobokenx <-----

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

citizen_average[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

Congress passes the tax laws. Talk to your CongressCritter
about this, but don't hold your breath. The party presently
in control of congress would like to _increase_ the tax load
on the "rich" and by definition your income qualifies you as
on of those rich folks that they want to take even more
money from.

So look for the tax in the highest bracket to increase, the
phase outs to become even lower and no changes in the AMT in
the foreseeable future.

--
-Ernie-

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

My income doubled in 2006, because of, essentially, a kind
of deferred bonus-type payment, which all had to be paid in
2006. It was treated as wage income. This caused the net
wage income for me and my wife to be 400K. Other income
(interest, divident), etc., is about 10K. Deductions are
just California state taxes (35K), property taxes (4K),
mortgage interest (10K).

Most of this income is taxes in the highest California tax
bracket, 9.3%, and and the two highest federal tax brackets,
33% and 35%. And, this being wage, paid medicare taxes on
the whole thing.

But the kicker is the AMT and phsaeouts.

At Federal level:
1. First of all, my federal itemized deduction is limited.
2. Next, the personal exemptions are phased out by 2/3rd.
3. High California state taxes causes AMT for Federal. But
the exemption amount fo AMT is phased out, meaning I
have to pay the highest rate starting with the 1st
dollar.
3. Completely phased out of child tax credit.
4. Completely phased out of traditional IRA deduction, or
even a Roth contribution.

State level:
5. California state itemized deduction limited.
6. State equivalent of personal deduction (tax credits)
completely phased out.
7. Statey child tax credit completely phased out

The list just goes on an on.... it's a phaseout nightmare.

I realize my incoime for 2006 is big, but I worked so hard.
First the highest tax brackets, and then all these
phaseouts. It's as if I should forget everything and file
just a 1040 ez, with 0 deduction, and 0 exemption. Arghhh

WSJ just reported that Ray Irani was paid $400 MILLION last
year; a thousand times what I have. I wonder if there is
anything that is not phased out for him...

Why don't we have honest tax laws, higher rates reflecting
true rates, no phseout gimmicks? At the very margin, my
rates due to many phseouts may be well over 50%!

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >