H.R. 1, “Tax cuts and jobs act”

[Supposn]

H.R. 1, “Tax cuts and jobs act”:

Within the proposed “Tax Cuts & Jobs Act”, the populist proposal doubling the standard deduction is of conspicuous merit, and eliminating the alternative minimum tax would be contemptible.
(Increasing the standard deduction would be further improved if it were subject to annual cost of living adjustments).

[Consider the alleged pages of Donald Trump's 1040 tax return for 2005 published by the NY Times.
It was conceivable for his effective tax rate upon a $49, 592, 825 adjusted gross income to be less than $5, 310, 616. (Trump then instead had to pay the alternative minimum tax).
The working-poors' wages do not contribute income tax revenues and cannot fund or their dependents' medical insurance, but they contribute 7.65% FICA taxes upon their entire wages. It should be conceivable that some millionaires will be obliged to pay an effective income tax rate of less than 11%, (i.e. 10.7%)?]

Elimination of the alternative minimum tax would effectively reduce our tax revenues and act as a tax boon for only the financially favored. Accusations that FDR was “a traitor to his class” served to enhance his reputation. Elimination of the AMT would enhance president Trump's and Republicans' reputations among the wealthy.

If sufficient numbers of Republicans do not oppose eliminating the AMT, Democrats should be able to hang it, (as the “albatross”), around president Trump's and all Republican candidates' necks.
But there's a difference between “should be” and “will be”. The incompetent Democratic National Committee couldn't defend the reputation of a presidential candidate. John Kerry served in the military with distinction that went beyond simply honorable.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

eliminating the alternative minimum tax would be contemptible.

Kill the AMT.

(Increasing the standard deduction would be further improved if it were subject to annual cost of living adjustments).

Do you believe standard deductions are not indexed?

It should be conceivable that some millionaires will be obliged to pay an effective income tax rate of less than 11%, (i.e. 10.7%)?]

So what?
If there is a particular deduction you find egregious,
let's discuss it, but if the deductions are fine, so is the effective rate.

Elimination of the alternative minimum tax would effectively reduce our tax revenues

But more importantly, it would reduce some of the moronic complexity of the tax code.

If sufficient numbers of Republicans do not oppose eliminating the AMT, Democrats should be able to hang it, (as the “albatross”), around president Trump's and all Republican candidates' necks.

They'll hang tax cuts around Republican necks, no matter what is included.
Whiney libs will wring their hands, no matter what. Few votes will be changed.

The incompetent Democratic National Committee couldn't defend the reputation of a presidential candidate. John Kerry served in the military with distinction that went beyond simply honorable.

Kerry was, and is, a whiney twat.

 

[Supposn]

eliminating the alternative minimum tax would be contemptible.

Kill the AMT. ... It should be conceivable that some millionaires will be obliged to pay an effective income tax rate of less than 11%, (i.e. 10.7%)?

So what?
If there is a particular deduction you find egregious,
let's discuss it, but if the deductions are fine, so is the effective rate.

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

 

[Toro]

I generally approve of this tax bill but it is unpopular.

 

[jillian]

H.R. 1, “Tax cuts and jobs act”:

Within the proposed “Tax Cuts & Jobs Act”, the populist proposal doubling the standard deduction is of conspicuous merit, and eliminating the alternative minimum tax would be contemptible.
(Increasing the standard deduction would be further improved if it were subject to annual cost of living adjustments).

[Consider the alleged pages of Donald Trump's 1040 tax return for 2005 published by the NY Times.
It was conceivable for his effective tax rate upon a $49, 592, 825 adjusted gross income to be less than $5, 310, 616. (Trump then instead had to pay the alternative minimum tax).
The working-poors' wages do not contribute income tax revenues and cannot fund or their dependents' medical insurance, but they contribute 7.65% FICA taxes upon their entire wages. It should be conceivable that some millionaires will be obliged to pay an effective income tax rate of less than 11%, (i.e. 10.7%)?]

Elimination of the alternative minimum tax would effectively reduce our tax revenues and act as a tax boon for only the financially favored. Accusations that FDR was “a traitor to his class” served to enhance his reputation. Elimination of the AMT would enhance president Trump's and Republicans' reputations among the wealthy.

If sufficient numbers of Republicans do not oppose eliminating the AMT, Democrats should be able to hang it, (as the “albatross”), around president Trump's and all Republican candidates' necks.
But there's a difference between “should be” and “will be”. The incompetent Democratic National Committee couldn't defend the reputation of a presidential candidate. John Kerry served in the military with distinction that went beyond simply honorable.

Respectfully, Supposn

and it is the effective minimum tax and estate taxes that Donald wants cut because then he and his deplorable children wouldn't pay even the pittance they now pay.

 

[Supposn]

... Do you believe standard deductions are not indexed?

ToddsterPatriot, yes, I do believe standard income tax deductions are not indexed.

... Kerry was, and is, a whiney twat.

The U.S. Department of the Navy does not casualy distribute bronze and silver star awards as you would serve d'oeuvres. John Kerry's performed his duties with distinction.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

eliminating the alternative minimum tax would be contemptible.

Kill the AMT. ... It should be conceivable that some millionaires will be obliged to pay an effective income tax rate of less than 11%, (i.e. 10.7%)?

So what?
If there is a particular deduction you find egregious,
let's discuss it, but if the deductions are fine, so is the effective rate.

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity

Then talk about the individual bits of the tax law you dislike, instead of whining like a lib.

all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages;

All employees need to pay into that crappy SocSec system.

But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Show me how a millionaire could do that and we can discuss it detail.
Simply whining "11%....waaahhhhh" is pointless.

there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax

We could talk about how it was meant to tax the rich but has ended up taxing the middle class......
but I don't want to make you cry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... Do you believe standard deductions are not indexed?

ToddsterPatriot, yes, I do believe standard income tax deductions are not indexed.

... Kerry was, and is, a whiney twat.

The U.S. Department of the Navy does not casualy distribute bronze and silver star awards as you would serve d'oeuvres. John Kerry's performed his duties with distinction.

Respectfully Supposn

yes, I do believe standard income tax deductions are not indexed.

The federal personal income tax has more than 40 provisions that are indexed to inflation, including the income thresholds for tax brackets, the standard deduction, personal exemption, maximum income for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the income thresholds for limits on itemized deductions. Even the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is now indexed to inflation, a development that will spare Congress from having to enact repeated temporary “patches” to update the AMT’s parameters, as it did in the years prior to indexing. Because of these annual adjustments, taxpayers retain the value of various benefits and are protected from unintentional tax hikes from year to year.

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/Indexing-2016.pdf

The U.S. Department of the Navy does not casualy distribute bronze and silver star awards as you would serve d'oeuvres.

Bronze and Silver Star recipients are somehow forbidden from whining?
Someone should tell Kerry, he's been a whiney twat since at least the 70s.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The Senate GOP will unveil a completely different plan. Both chambers will argue bigly, Trump will insult everyone and derail the process, and tax reform will turn into a few minor adjustments of the current tax code.

 

[Supposn]

... If there is a particular deduction you find egregious,
let's discuss it, but if the deductions are fine, so is the effective rate.

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity.

Then talk about the individual bits of the tax law you dislike, instead of whining like a lib.

ToddsterPatriot, the tax averaging provision within IRS regulations applied to almost any taxpayers' “jumps” of annual incomes. It was no less applicable to significant lottery winners, or increases of incomes derived from wages, investments, gambling, ANY capital gains, or commercial sex. It reduces the peak income tax rates of those with erratic annual incomes.

Refer to the initial post of the thread,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/capital-gains-income-averaging.205471/

I'm a proponent of eliminating the unjustifiably inequitable deep tax rate discounts limited to only to incomes derived from the year's aggregate long-term capital gains transactions and replacing it by again providing all taxpayers with the tax reduction benefits from averaging out their annual incomes over a 3 year duration. I'm not opposed to extending those averages beyond a 3 year span.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[Supposn]

The federal personal income tax has more than 40 provisions that are indexed to inflation, including the income thresholds for tax brackets, the standard deduction, personal exemption, maximum income for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the income thresholds for limits on itemized deductions. Even the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is now indexed to inflation, a development that will spare Congress from having to enact repeated temporary “patches” to update the AMT’s parameters, as it did in the years prior to indexing. Because of these annual adjustments, taxpayers retain the value of various benefits and are protected from unintentional tax hikes from year to year.

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/Indexing-2016.pdf

ToddsterPatriot, what you've posted may, (or may not) be valid. I have never read any authoritative statement declaring the IRS income taxes' standard deductions per taxpayers are annually indexed. Do have any links supporting your post. The link you provided is not authoritative and it seems to be a proposal for what they desire, rather than a description of our IRS laws and regulations.

Possibly it's similar to presidents' publicly revealed filed taxes? By custom presidents' administrations have been annually monitoring and choosing to update or not update the dollar values of the standard deductions?
President Trump's decisions not to liquidate or place his investment in the the care of blind trusts, he's chosen to break with what's been the traditions, and keep control of everything within his own family.
Similarly, with regard to indexing the standard deductions, we cannot depend upon those items being indexed. With President Trump, we cannot depend upon anything.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The federal personal income tax has more than 40 provisions that are indexed to inflation, including the income thresholds for tax brackets, the standard deduction, personal exemption, maximum income for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the income thresholds for limits on itemized deductions. Even the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is now indexed to inflation, a development that will spare Congress from having to enact repeated temporary “patches” to update the AMT’s parameters, as it did in the years prior to indexing. Because of these annual adjustments, taxpayers retain the value of various benefits and are protected from unintentional tax hikes from year to year.

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/Indexing-2016.pdf

ToddsterPatriot, what you've posted may, (or may not) be valid. I have never read any authoritative statement declaring the IRS income taxes' standard deductions per taxpayers are annually indexed. Do have any links supporting your post. The link you provided is not authoritative and it seems to be a proposal for what they desire, rather than a description of our IRS laws and regulations.

Possibly it's similar to presidents' publicly revealed filed taxes? By custom presidents' administrations have been annually monitoring and choosing to update or not update the dollar values of the standard deductions?
President Trump's decisions not to liquidate or place his investment in the the care of blind trusts, he's chosen to break with what's been the traditions, and keep control of everything within his own family.
Similarly, with regard to indexing the standard deductions, we cannot depend upon those items being indexed. With President Trump, we cannot depend upon anything.

Respectfully, Supposn

Inflation Adjusted Tax Items by Tax Year | Internal Revenue Service

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... If there is a particular deduction you find egregious,
let's discuss it, but if the deductions are fine, so is the effective rate.

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity.

Then talk about the individual bits of the tax law you dislike, instead of whining like a lib.

ToddsterPatriot, the tax averaging provision within IRS regulations applied to almost any taxpayers' “jumps” of annual incomes. It was no less applicable to significant lottery winners, or increases of incomes derived from wages, investments, gambling, ANY capital gains, or commercial sex. It reduces the peak income tax rates of those with erratic annual incomes.

Refer to the initial post of the thread,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/capital-gains-income-averaging.205471/

I'm a proponent of eliminating the unjustifiably inequitable deep tax rate discounts limited to only to incomes derived from the year's aggregate long-term capital gains transactions and replacing it by again providing all taxpayers with the tax reduction benefits from averaging out their annual incomes over a 3 year duration. I'm not opposed to extending those averages beyond a 3 year span.

Respectfully Supposn

I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging,

Why?

 

[Supposn]

Toddsterpatriot, I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging.

I prefer the federal government refrain from interfering or influencing independent entities' self-determinations within level free enterprise markets. The government should not favor or disfavor long-term capital gains incomes.

Unlike the tax provisions favoring only long-term capital gains incomes, the income averaging provisions provides tax consideration for all, or effectively almost all taxpayers that are otherwise injured due to their erratic amounts of annual incomes. It does not discriminate among incomes derived from any type of capital gain, or real-estate, or gambling, or lottery, or wages, or almost any other income source you can conceive.

Refer to the initial post of the thread,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/capital-gains-income-averaging.205471/

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot, I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging.

I prefer the federal government refrain from interfering or influencing independent entities' self-determinations within level free enterprise markets. The government should not favor or disfavor long-term capital gains incomes.

Unlike the tax provisions favoring only long-term capital gains incomes, the income averaging provisions provides tax consideration for all, or effectively almost all taxpayers that are otherwise injured due to their erratic amounts of annual incomes. It does not discriminate among incomes derived from any type of capital gain, or real-estate, or gambling, or lottery, or wages, or almost any other income source you can conceive.

Refer to the initial post of the thread,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/capital-gains-income-averaging.205471/

Respectfully, Supposn

The government should not favor or disfavor long-term capital gains incomes.

Yes, a top bracket of 20% with a 20% capital gains rate sounds good to me.

 

[Supposn]

The federal personal income tax has more than 40 provisions that are indexed to inflation, including the income thresholds for tax brackets, the standard deduction, personal exemption, maximum income for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the income thresholds for limits on itemized deductions. Even the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is now indexed to inflation, a development that will spare Congress from having to enact repeated temporary “patches” to update the AMT’s parameters, as it did in the years prior to indexing. Because of these annual adjustments, taxpayers retain the value of various benefits and are protected from unintentional tax hikes from year to year.

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/Indexing-2016.pdf

ToddsterPatriot, what you've posted may, (or may not) be valid. I have never read any authoritative statement declaring the IRS income taxes' standard deductions per taxpayers are annually indexed. Do have any links supporting your post. The link you provided is not authoritative and it seems to be a proposal for what they desire, rather than a description of our IRS laws and regulations.

Possibly it's similar to presidents' publicly revealed filed taxes? By custom presidents' administrations have been annually monitoring and choosing to update or not update the dollar values of the standard deductions?
President Trump's decisions not to liquidate or place his investment in the the care of blind trusts, he's chosen to break with what's been the traditions, and keep control of everything within his own family.
Similarly, with regard to indexing the standard deductions, we cannot depend upon those items being indexed. With President Trump, we cannot depend upon anything.

Respectfully, Supposn

Inflation Adjusted Tax Items by Tax Year | Internal Revenue Service

Toddsterpatriot, thank you for the link. I hadn't noticed that standard deductions were being indexed.
Social security's COLA is mandated by law. Are the standard deductions determined by law or IRS regulations, or executive order?
I don't know, but I fear that they're not mandated by federal law. Standard deductions' updates for any year can then be canceled or possibly otherwise modified by the White House? We're dependent upon President Trump's moods?

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/ :
History of Automatic Cost-Of-Living Adjustments (COLA) ...Congress enacted the COLA provision as part of the 1972 Social Security Amendments, and automatic annual COLAs began in 1975.


Before that, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation. Beginning in 1975, Social Security started automatic annual cost-of-living allowances. The change was enacted by legislation that ties COLAs to the annual increase in the CPI-W.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The federal personal income tax has more than 40 provisions that are indexed to inflation, including the income thresholds for tax brackets, the standard deduction, personal exemption, maximum income for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the income thresholds for limits on itemized deductions. Even the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is now indexed to inflation, a development that will spare Congress from having to enact repeated temporary “patches” to update the AMT’s parameters, as it did in the years prior to indexing. Because of these annual adjustments, taxpayers retain the value of various benefits and are protected from unintentional tax hikes from year to year.

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/Indexing-2016.pdf

ToddsterPatriot, what you've posted may, (or may not) be valid. I have never read any authoritative statement declaring the IRS income taxes' standard deductions per taxpayers are annually indexed. Do have any links supporting your post. The link you provided is not authoritative and it seems to be a proposal for what they desire, rather than a description of our IRS laws and regulations.

Possibly it's similar to presidents' publicly revealed filed taxes? By custom presidents' administrations have been annually monitoring and choosing to update or not update the dollar values of the standard deductions?
President Trump's decisions not to liquidate or place his investment in the the care of blind trusts, he's chosen to break with what's been the traditions, and keep control of everything within his own family.
Similarly, with regard to indexing the standard deductions, we cannot depend upon those items being indexed. With President Trump, we cannot depend upon anything.

Respectfully, Supposn

Inflation Adjusted Tax Items by Tax Year | Internal Revenue Service

Toddsterpatriot, thank you for the link. I hadn't noticed that standard deductions were being indexed.
Social security's COLA is mandated by law. Are the standard deductions determined by law or IRS regulations, or executive order?
I don't know, but I fear that they're not mandated by federal law. Standard deductions' updates for any year can then be canceled or possibly otherwise modified by the White House? We're dependent upon President Trump's moods?

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/ :
History of Automatic Cost-Of-Living Adjustments (COLA) ...Congress enacted the COLA provision as part of the 1972 Social Security Amendments, and automatic annual COLAs began in 1975.


Before that, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation. Beginning in 1975, Social Security started automatic annual cost-of-living allowances. The change was enacted by legislation that ties COLAs to the annual increase in the CPI-W.

We're dependent upon President Trump's moods?

Wow! What a silly fear.
Using your "logic", Trump could tell the IRS to modify brackets, exemptions and deductions based on an inflation rate of 100%.
That would be a nice big tax cut with no input from Congress.

Meanwhile, in the real world.

SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This revenue procedure sets forth inflation-adjusted items for 2018 for various
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code)

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-17-58.pdf

 

[Supposn]

The federal personal income tax has more than 40 provisions that are indexed to inflation, including the income thresholds for tax brackets, the standard deduction, personal exemption, maximum income for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the income thresholds for limits on itemized deductions. Even the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is now indexed to inflation, a development that will spare Congress from having to enact repeated temporary “patches” to update the AMT’s parameters, as it did in the years prior to indexing. Because of these annual adjustments, taxpayers retain the value of various benefits and are protected from unintentional tax hikes from year to year.

https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/Indexing-2016.pdf

ToddsterPatriot, what you've posted may, (or may not) be valid. I have never read any authoritative statement declaring the IRS income taxes' standard deductions per taxpayers are annually indexed. Do have any links supporting your post. The link you provided is not authoritative and it seems to be a proposal for what they desire, rather than a description of our IRS laws and regulations.

Possibly it's similar to presidents' publicly revealed filed taxes? By custom presidents' administrations have been annually monitoring and choosing to update or not update the dollar values of the standard deductions?
President Trump's decisions not to liquidate or place his investment in the the care of blind trusts, he's chosen to break with what's been the traditions, and keep control of everything within his own family.
Similarly, with regard to indexing the standard deductions, we cannot depend upon those items being indexed. With President Trump, we cannot depend upon anything.

Respectfully, Supposn

Inflation Adjusted Tax Items by Tax Year | Internal Revenue Service

Toddsterpatriot, thank you for the link. I hadn't noticed that standard deductions were being indexed.
Social security's COLA is mandated by law. Are the standard deductions determined by law or IRS regulations, or executive order?
I don't know, but I fear that they're not mandated by federal law. Standard deductions' updates for any year can then be canceled or possibly otherwise modified by the White House? We're dependent upon President Trump's moods?

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/ :
History of Automatic Cost-Of-Living Adjustments (COLA) ...Congress enacted the COLA provision as part of the 1972 Social Security Amendments, and automatic annual COLAs began in 1975.


Before that, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation. Beginning in 1975, Social Security started automatic annual cost-of-living allowances. The change was enacted by legislation that ties COLAs to the annual increase in the CPI-W.

We're dependent upon President Trump's moods?

Wow! What a silly fear.
Using your "logic", Trump could tell the IRS to modify brackets, exemptions and deductions based on an inflation rate of 100%.
That would be a nice big tax cut with no input from Congress.

Meanwhile, in the real world.

SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This revenue procedure sets forth inflation-adjusted items for 2018 for various
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code)

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-17-58.pdf

Thanks for the link. In the real world I'd hate for us to be completely dependent upon the mature judgment of president Trump.

Excerpted from https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-17-58.pdf
(1) In general. For taxable years beginning in 2018, the standard deduction
amounts under § 63(c)(2) are as follows:
Filing Status Standard Deduction
Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns $13,000 and Surviving Spouses (§ 1(a))
Heads of Households (§ 1(b)) $9,550
Unmarried Individuals (other than Surviving Spouses $6,500 and Heads of Households) (§ 1(c))
Married Individuals Filing Separate $6,500 Returns (§ 1(d))

Excerpted from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63
(2) Basic standard deduction For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is—
(A) 200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of—
(i) a joint return, or
(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
(B) $4,400 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or
(C) $3,000 in any other case.

 

[martybegan]

eliminating the alternative minimum tax would be contemptible.

Kill the AMT. ... It should be conceivable that some millionaires will be obliged to pay an effective income tax rate of less than 11%, (i.e. 10.7%)?

So what?
If there is a particular deduction you find egregious,
let's discuss it, but if the deductions are fine, so is the effective rate.

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The AMT as currently set up really only impacts upper middle/lower upper people, and mostly in high cost Blue States.

My Brother and Sister-in-law, both lawyers, but hardly rich, always have to deal with it, and they were never the intended target.

 

[Supposn]

eliminating the alternative minimum tax would be contemptible.

Kill the AMT. ... It should be conceivable that some millionaires will be obliged to pay an effective income tax rate of less than 11%, (i.e. 10.7%)?

So what?
If there is a particular deduction you find egregious,
let's discuss it, but if the deductions are fine, so is the effective rate.

ToddsterPatriot, no; the it's not fine! The alternative minimum tax's purpose was to prevent granting the wealthy favorable effective income tax rates of great disparity; i.e. to not tolerate the more wealthy being granted obscene, indecent, inequitably favoring tax rates.

Many of the working-poor cannot afford medical insurance for themselves and/or their dependents; all employees, (including the working poor) will continue paying 7.65% FICA upon their entire wages; the proposed reduced income tax bracket rates are to be 12%/ 25%/ 35%/. But a millionaire's effective income tax rate could conceivably be less than 11% and you ask, “so what”?

Since you find the need to ask, there's apparently no reason for us to discuss the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Supposn

The AMT as currently set up really only impacts upper middle/lower upper people, and mostly in high cost Blue States.

My Brother and Sister-in-law, both lawyers, but hardly rich, always have to deal with it, and they were never the intended target.

MartyBegan, due to the alternative minimum tax, Donald Trump's federal 2005 taxes were increased in excess of 588%. That's why he's so opposed to the AMT?

Respectfully, Supposn