Ernie Klein wrote:
- quote -

Well, not really. The previous poster (you?) put a distinct spin on
those facts by characterizing the motivations.

In fact, the Republicans and the Democrats are equally cynical on this
matter.

Everyone knew that the failure to index the AMT would create a huge
steaming pile of poo, and it's just been getting more and more aromatic
as time goes on. Instead of trying to deal with it, everyone has been
trying to use it to political advantage -- which of course, means not
doing anything to FIX the problem, so it can be used in campaigns, by
blaming The Other Party.

And the AMT is really just an hors d'oeuvre compared to the real dead
whales in the room: Social Security and (shudder) Medicare.

In article <g_29j.542$ZA4.362[at]trnddc03> ,
"Phil Marti" <prm20871[at]verizon.net> wrote:
- quote -

I wasn't making an attack on anyone, only stating the facts of what is
going on at the present. In the past the players were different but the
game was the same.

- quote -

It is the elephant in the room that no one wanted to talk about or even
acknowledge.

- quote -

Like I said, it is a game, an attempt to get more money based on a false
premise - that the poorly planed AMT which was not indexed to inflation
is a "real" shortfall that must be made up for from other sources.

- quote -

I am not sure I would call it honest no matter who is playing the game.
Like all standoffs, this one is likely to end with a compromise - the
Dems won't get the big increase they want, but they will get something,
and we, the tax payers, pay the bill. The Repubs and Dems pat each
other on the back and it's back to business as usual 'till next year.

- quote -

I can't disagree with that <g> .

And I think we are in agreement that the AMT is a cash cow that neither
party has any real incentive to actually fix (for real - once and for
all).

--
-Ernie-

"Ernie Klein" wrote:

- quote -

Had you made a plain old criticism of the political class in general I'd
have been right in the "go get 'em" line. Since you chose a partisan attack
on the Democrats in the House, I'll offer a different view.

Actually, it's the Dems in the House who have pulled back the curtain and
revealed the real Wizard. Do you think Congress just ignored AMT when
passing the tax cuts since 2000? Right, and the tooth fairy is real. They
used projected AMT to "pay" for them in budget projections, knowing full
well that they'd then be able to scream about the poor middle class and get
patches through year after year, tacking the shortfall onto the debt.

Regardless of what one thinks of the House proposal, at least it's more
honest than what's been going on.

As for my preference, I long for the days when we had stingy Republicans, a
vanishing breed, running Congress and a Democrat in the White House.
--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

In article
<c5dfe7ff-3cac-40b9-9740-1320463b8506[at]a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com> ,
ebetts3[at]msn.com wrote:

- quote -

And the problem is that the Dems in the House see this additional AMT
tax from the additional 21 million taxpayers as "their" money. They
insist that any AMT fix that reduces the amount of revenue that they
shouldn't get in the first place, but will get if they DON'T patch the
AMT (again), must be offset with either an ADDITIONAL tax increase
elsewhere or a reduction in spending (not likely). They totally ignore
the argument that there is no actual "loss" of revenue if they fix the
AMT, because they should not be getting the increased revenue at all. It
is all a game to push through a tax increase by holding 21 million
taxpayers hostage.

While an increase in taxes can pass the House, it has no chance
whatsoever in the Senate (or the veto pen) and they all know that, but
those running the show in the House won't back down so there is gridlock.

--
-Ernie-

Thank you everyone for replies. Spot on :-) Most of my friends did not
know of the increase. I had heard on media that "due to inflation more
people will be hit by the AMT", so assumed maybe a 3% increase, offset
by other inflation indexing.

The reversion to prior exemption brackets makes my AMT jump by over
400%, and my total tax bill ups by 13%. I pick up the full $8,750 /
$17,500 tabulation.I wonder how many other payments will be missed, to
pay taxes? Annualized ES payments for 2008 should be fun!

On Dec 14, 6:52 pm, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

And congress has recessed for the weekend. This is a real mess and
hardly anybody knows about it. (true it has been reported in the
media, but the average Joe taxpayer is unaware). With the current
law an additional 21 million taxpayers will pay AMT for 2007. Any
change in legislation is going to delay IRS processing of ALL returns
(e-file & paper) for about 7-10 weeks until the systems are changed
and we may be delayed in filing until into Feb. I hope congress does
nothing and let "it hit the fan" next year during an election year.

dapperdobbs wrote:
- quote -

The 107th Congress with Pres. Bush passed a bill that implemented
a 4 year temporary fix (2001 to 2004). In 2005, the exemption
reverted back to the level before the 2001 fix. In 2006, the
109th Congress with Pres. Bush implemented a 1 year fix for 2006.
In 2007, it reverts back again. This has not been a secret. It
has been reported in all the media including CNBC. At the time of
the 2006 fix, a search of the congressional record reflects lots
of comments about the impact in 2007 of a one year fix.

Phil Marti wrote:
- quote -

nothing" congress like we had back in the late forties?

ChEAr$,
Harlan

"Harlan Lunsford" wrote:

- quote -

I heard one member on TV a few days ago say he HOPES they'll be out by
Christmas.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

Phil Marti wrote:
- quote -


ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

"dapperdobbs" <GeorgeCFL[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

We don't know yet what the final numbers for 2007 will be since Congress is
still contemplating its navel. The numbers in the forms are the law before
the anticipated "patch" that Congress has been doing annually.

To stay up to date on this search on "AMT" at www.washingtonpost.com.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

"dapperdobbs" <GeorgeCFL[at]hotmail.com> wrote
- quote -


Actually no. Any increase would be, at best, that amount times the AMT tax
rate. 26% or 28%, so $2275 to $4900.

Reports peg the "average" tax increase by $2000, but you can't trust
reporters.




- quote -



This is the result of the cardboard patch "fixes" that last as long as it
takes to get through the vote in Congress. In other words, last year's
increased exemption amounts were a temporary patch, which expired for 2007.
No patch has been forthcoming from Congress in the past 12 months - and for
sure no final resolution to AMT either.

Currently Congress is arguing over how to fix AMT, the Senate has a patch
without any tax offsets (budget cuts and/or tax increases elsewhere), the
House wants to have tax offsets (increased tax elsewhere, what's a budget
cut?). The Prez said he would veto any bill that carried any increased tax.

Stay tuned, as neither party can leave this one alone going into an election
year......or can they......





--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

The exemption amount for AMT (Form 6251) is reduced for 2007, by
$8,750 (single) and $17,500 (joint) - meaning that the AMT due will
increase by those amounts, for those who are subject to it.

If you and spouse show more than $167,500 on line 30, I betcha you pay
$17,500 more this year than you did last. This is pretty shocking,
given all the recent news about "fixing the AMT" or abolishing it
altogether. The IRS has the reduction amounts on their website (search
2007 6251 and the link will appear amongst the handful of results.

Does anyone here know how this statutory increase came about, who
sponsored it or suggested, or allowed it? (And who hid it from public
discussion on CNBC?)

Good luck all.