Stealth Taxes...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Mar 13, 2005.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h1><a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/opinion/13sun1.html?pagewanted=print&position=>Mr. Bush's Stealthy Tax Increase:president Bush is presiding over a big middle-class tax hike.</a></h1></center>

    <blockquote>As recently as 2000, only about one million taxpayers owed the alternative minimum tax, created by a provision in the federal tax code that is supposed to prevent multimillionaires from using loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. But by the time Americans file their 2005 taxes, some 3 million taxpayers will owe the alternative tax and by 2010, nearly 30 million taxpayers will be hit - among them, a staggering 94 percent of married filers who have children and make $75,000 to $100,000.

    Big families in high-tax states - New York, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts - will bear the heaviest burden, largely because the alternative tax increasingly disallows write-offs for dependents, state income taxes and local property taxes. On average, by 2010, people who make under $100,000 and owe the alternative tax will pay an additional $1,321 in federal income taxes, while alternative tax payers who make between $100,000 and $200,000 will owe an additional $2,592.

    Meanwhile, and most outrageous, only 35 percent of taxpayers who earn $1 million or more will owe the alternative tax.

    Why does the alternative tax increasingly afflict middle-rung taxpayers for whom it was never intended, while largely ignoring the highest-end taxpayers it is meant for?

    First, the alternative tax is not adjusted for inflation, so over time, more and more middle-income taxpayers find themselves owing it. </blockquote>

    While Dubbyuh promised not to overtly raise taxes, he is raising them covertly. the tax cuts passed since the administration took office make huge loopholes for invesment and dividend income, which most of us never see, while viewing deductions for property taxes and state taxes, whic most of us pay, as tax shelters. And those of you who live in high tax states know how big a bite those take out of your pocket. If there is no reform or update of the AMT law, by 2010, <a href=http://www.forbes.com/finance/2004/02/03/cz_jn_0203amt.html>92%</a> of all people earning between $100,000 and $200,000 per year will be paying the AMT. So much for helping the middle class.

    For full text of the linked articles goto:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/opinion/13sun1.html?pagewanted=print&position=

    http://www.forbes.com/finance/2004/02/03/cz_jn_0203amt.html
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    And dems would have us paying more. Lesser of two evils bully.
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    There is a price to be paid for living in a civilized society. They're called taxes...Unless you'd prefer the anarchy of no society at all.
     
  4. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    So, what the hell, Bully? Raising taxes is good when Democrats do it, but bad when President Bush does it? We're engaging in a bit of selective terminology, aren't we?

    As far as the Republican Party straying from the principles of conservatism, you'll get no argument from me.
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    No, I simply prefer the lesser of two evils. We just disagree on which party describes that. It seems you are under the mistaken belief that everybody on this site is even Republican, let alone think that the Republicans are the perfect Party.

    I prefer a system where the Central Government spends less and taxes individuals less than the State Governments. It isn't likely to happen, but surely you can't expect me to vote for a party that thinks a strong Central Government is the only way to solve problems. I have to split the difference and vote for the least of two evils.
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Frankly, Bully, I have been a huge advocate for repealing, not just reforming, the AMT. But this is not a new issue. Bush's predecessors have been presiding over AMT "bracket creep" for decades. I applaud you for bringing the issue up, but you are wrong to lay this completely at Bush's feet.
     
  7. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    I just recieved a 4,020 dollar check from the feds, another 800 from state...this never happened under Clinton and I make between my wife and I 80-100,000 a year. I'll believe this when I see it.

    The part about taxes and the price of living in a civilized society is bullshit, when you get right down to it the citizens are overtaxed here by about 30 percent(we should have a tax rate for everyone between about 5-10 percent, the country will function just fine) hence that is the reason why there was a surplus under Bubba, he simply overtaxed us and stole from us. Bush did the right thing and gave the money back to its rightful owners......all this bullshit about tax breaks for the rich is simply another dishonest statement and tactic used by Dems to villify, kind of like the one where they said Repubs will take lunch away from school children, simply outrageous.

    If there is a tax raise i'll be dissappointed, but i'll take a tax raise from Repubs alot easier than I will Demos, the overall package socially, foriegn policy etc. etc. is more in line with reality and what the normal American believes.
     
  8. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Indeed, the issue has lain dormant for a number of years, but Dubbyuh's tax-cuts have only exacerbated the situation.
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    No. Dubbyuh's tax cuts are unquestionably good in all ways, exacerbating nothing.
     
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    It hasn't lain dormant. It's been an issue ever since the AMT was made law. Bush's tax cuts should include getting rid of the AMT, IMO.
     

Share This Page