H.R. 1, “Tax cuts and jobs act”

[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.

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

Why is that fair?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

???? why talk about AMT alone when its a huge package and you should be most concerned with net taxes paid??? As a standard libcommmie we know you want the rich to pay even more and the poor to free load even more since crippling people is the way a liberal helps the poor..

 

[Lewdog]

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.

I heard a Congressman on tv argue this point... and you wouldn't believe what he said. He said that the rich like Trump already know how to get around paying the inheritance tax because they pay expensive accountants to do it for them, and the only people this tax cut will help are farmers in the Midwest... and when he was asked how many farmers in the Midwest has $11 million dollar farms that met the tax requirement he didn't answer.

 

[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.

I heard a Congressman on tv argue this point... and you wouldn't believe what he said. He said that the rich like Trump already know how to get around paying the inheritance tax because they pay expensive accountants to do it for them, and the only people this tax cut will help are farmers in the Midwest... and when he was asked how many farmers in the Midwest has $11 million dollar farms that met the tax requirement he didn't answer.

they love using that argument. the reality is that a) most "family farms" have been shut down and farming is now done at industrial scale; and b) the estate tax really only affects a limited number of people in tis country... and it isn't farmers.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

I heard a Congressman on tv argue this point... and you wouldn't believe what he said. He said that the rich like Trump already know how to get around paying the inheritance tax because they pay expensive accountants to do it for them, and the only people this tax cut will help are farmers in the Midwest... and when he was asked how many farmers in the Midwest has $11 million dollar farms that met the tax requirement he didn't answer.

they love using that argument. the reality is that a) most "family farms" have been shut down and farming is now done at industrial scale; and b) the estate tax really only affects a limited number of people in tis country... and it isn't farmers.

Sounds to me like they are doing things ass-backwards. Shouldn't the government then be finding ways to close the inheritance tax loop holes people like Trump are using... rather than trying to cut inheritance taxes saying they are trying to help farmers?

 

[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.

I heard a Congressman on tv argue this point... and you wouldn't believe what he said. He said that the rich like Trump already know how to get around paying the inheritance tax because they pay expensive accountants to do it for them, and the only people this tax cut will help are farmers in the Midwest... and when he was asked how many farmers in the Midwest has $11 million dollar farms that met the tax requirement he didn't answer.

they love using that argument. the reality is that a) most "family farms" have been shut down and farming is now done at industrial scale; and b) the estate tax really only affects a limited number of people in tis country... and it isn't farmers.

Sounds to me like they are doing things ass-backwards. Shouldn't the government then be finding ways to close the inheritance tax loop holes people like Trump are using... rather than trying to cut inheritance taxes saying they are trying to help farmers?

that would require they actually be competent.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

I heard a Congressman on tv argue this point... and you wouldn't believe what he said. He said that the rich like Trump already know how to get around paying the inheritance tax because they pay expensive accountants to do it for them, and the only people this tax cut will help are farmers in the Midwest... and when he was asked how many farmers in the Midwest has $11 million dollar farms that met the tax requirement he didn't answer.

they love using that argument. the reality is that a) most "family farms" have been shut down and farming is now done at industrial scale; and b) the estate tax really only affects a limited number of people in tis country... and it isn't farmers.

most importantly in a free country treasonous libcommie govt has no right to tax death and thus encourage you to waste your money before you die. Next they will tax you upon turning 80 or when they figure you 5 years left to live.


There are two distinct classes of men - those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes.
Thomas Paine

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine

 

[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.

I heard a Congressman on tv argue this point... and you wouldn't believe what he said. He said that the rich like Trump already know how to get around paying the inheritance tax because they pay expensive accountants to do it for them, and the only people this tax cut will help are farmers in the Midwest... and when he was asked how many farmers in the Midwest has $11 million dollar farms that met the tax requirement he didn't answer.

they love using that argument. the reality is that a) most "family farms" have been shut down and farming is now done at industrial scale; and b) the estate tax really only affects a limited number of people in tis country... and it isn't farmers.

most importantly in a free country treasonous libcommie govt has no right to tax death and thus encourage you to waste your money before you die. Next they will tax you upon turning 80 or when they figure you 5 years left to live.


There are two distinct classes of men - those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes.
Thomas Paine

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine

okie dokie, nutter butter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sounds to me like they are doing things ass-backwards. Shouldn't the government then be finding ways to close the inheritance tax loop holes people like Trump are using... rather than trying to cut inheritance taxes saying they are trying to help farmers?

Our libcommies seem to know libcommie govt is stupid and wasteful. That's why they allow people like Gates and Buffett to put their money in foundations where libcommie govt cant waste it. I mean come one, who is going to spend $150 billion better a libcommie bureaucrat or politician looking to win his next election or Gates/Buffett, two of the smartest men to ever live?

 

[Lewdog]

Sounds to me like they are doing things ass-backwards. Shouldn't the government then be finding ways to close the inheritance tax loop holes people like Trump are using... rather than trying to cut inheritance taxes saying they are trying to help farmers?

Our libcommies seem to know libcommie govt is stupid and wasteful. That's why they allow people like Gates and Buffett to put their money in foundations where libcommie govt cant waste it. I mean come one, who is going to spend $150 billion better a libcommie bureaucrat or politician looking to win his next election or Gates/Buffett, two of the smartest men to ever live?

I think you have an issue here that you don't quite understand. Bill Gates and Buffet give more money every year to charity than you can possibly fathom, and both have agreed to give away their fortune to charity when they die.

Trump had a foundation and used that money for personal legal fees, to buy a painting of himself, and sports memorabilia.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

okie dokie, nutter butter.

typical brainless liberal incapable of substance!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think you have an issue here that you don't quite understand. Bill Gates and Buffet give more money every year to charity than you can possibly fathom, and both have agreed to give away their fortune to charity when they die.

.

so far Buffett has earmarked $37 billion for foundation so libcommie govt cant waste his hard earned money.

 

[Lewdog]

I think you have an issue here that you don't quite understand. Bill Gates and Buffet give more money every year to charity than you can possibly fathom, and both have agreed to give away their fortune to charity when they die.

.

so far Buffett has earmarked $37 billion for foundation so libcommie govt cant waste his hard earned money.

I'm sorry you think all foundations are like Trump or Clinton's... some are actually real and do good deeds. He decided to give 85% of his money to the Gates Foundation when he dies.

Do you need someone to show you how legit their foundation is?

 

[jillian]

Sounds to me like they are doing things ass-backwards. Shouldn't the government then be finding ways to close the inheritance tax loop holes people like Trump are using... rather than trying to cut inheritance taxes saying they are trying to help farmers?

Our libcommies seem to know libcommie govt is stupid and wasteful. That's why they allow people like Gates and Buffett to put their money in foundations where libcommie govt cant waste it. I mean come one, who is going to spend $150 billion better a libcommie bureaucrat or politician looking to win his next election or Gates/Buffett, two of the smartest men to ever live?

it might be helpful if you learned the difference between liberals, socialists and "commies".... particularly when your orange loon seems to like "commies" very much and y'all are perfectly fine with that.

twits.

 

[jillian]

I think you have an issue here that you don't quite understand. Bill Gates and Buffet give more money every year to charity than you can possibly fathom, and both have agreed to give away their fortune to charity when they die.

.

so far Buffett has earmarked $37 billion for foundation so libcommie govt cant waste his hard earned money.

I'm sorry you think all foundations are like Trump or Clinton's... some are actually real and do good deeds. He decided to give 85% of his money to the Gates Foundation when he dies.

Do you need someone to show you how legit their foundation is?

actually the Clinton foundation has done a lot of good. you should probably look at their income statements online.

the so-called trump-foundation is clearly a scam. it wasn't intended to be when it started, then Donald told his boy to start charging the charities that were supposed to be getting funding -- for use of trump facilities so the foundation became a money making proposition for Donald.

 

[Lewdog]

I think you have an issue here that you don't quite understand. Bill Gates and Buffet give more money every year to charity than you can possibly fathom, and both have agreed to give away their fortune to charity when they die.

.

so far Buffett has earmarked $37 billion for foundation so libcommie govt cant waste his hard earned money.

I'm sorry you think all foundations are like Trump or Clinton's... some are actually real and do good deeds. He decided to give 85% of his money to the Gates Foundation when he dies.

Do you need someone to show you how legit their foundation is?

actually the Clinton foundation has done a lot of good. you should probably look at their income statements online.

the so-called trump-foundation is clearly a scam. it wasn't intended to be when it started, then Donald told his boy to start charging the charities that were supposed to be getting funding -- for use of trump facilities so the foundation became a money making proposition for Donald.

I've heard all the arguments, but this is something I have to take the side of Conservatives. Lots of the money was ill-gotten, and if the money was gotten through shady means, then more than likely something shady is also going on behind the scenes. It sure didn't help how they basically shut it down not long after her election loss.

 

[jillian]

I think you have an issue here that you don't quite understand. Bill Gates and Buffet give more money every year to charity than you can possibly fathom, and both have agreed to give away their fortune to charity when they die.

.

so far Buffett has earmarked $37 billion for foundation so libcommie govt cant waste his hard earned money.

I'm sorry you think all foundations are like Trump or Clinton's... some are actually real and do good deeds. He decided to give 85% of his money to the Gates Foundation when he dies.

Do you need someone to show you how legit their foundation is?

actually the Clinton foundation has done a lot of good. you should probably look at their income statements online.

the so-called trump-foundation is clearly a scam. it wasn't intended to be when it started, then Donald told his boy to start charging the charities that were supposed to be getting funding -- for use of trump facilities so the foundation became a money making proposition for Donald.

I've heard all the arguments, but this is something I have to take the side of Conservatives. Lots of the money was ill-gotten, and if the money was gotten through shady means, then more than likely something shady is also going on behind the scenes. It sure didn't help how they basically shut it down not long after her election loss.

again, those funds have been scrutinized. if there was anything untoward, she'd have been indicted since that's what the loons wanted anyway.

but she wasn't. and the charity was highly rated.... and the funding disclosed.

 

[Lewdog]

I think you have an issue here that you don't quite understand. Bill Gates and Buffet give more money every year to charity than you can possibly fathom, and both have agreed to give away their fortune to charity when they die.

.

so far Buffett has earmarked $37 billion for foundation so libcommie govt cant waste his hard earned money.

I'm sorry you think all foundations are like Trump or Clinton's... some are actually real and do good deeds. He decided to give 85% of his money to the Gates Foundation when he dies.

Do you need someone to show you how legit their foundation is?

actually the Clinton foundation has done a lot of good. you should probably look at their income statements online.

the so-called trump-foundation is clearly a scam. it wasn't intended to be when it started, then Donald told his boy to start charging the charities that were supposed to be getting funding -- for use of trump facilities so the foundation became a money making proposition for Donald.

I've heard all the arguments, but this is something I have to take the side of Conservatives. Lots of the money was ill-gotten, and if the money was gotten through shady means, then more than likely something shady is also going on behind the scenes. It sure didn't help how they basically shut it down not long after her election loss.

again, those funds have been scrutinized. if there was anything untoward, she'd have been indicted since that's what the loons wanted anyway.

but she wasn't. and the charity was highly rated.... and the funding disclosed.

Even Joe Biden has admitted that Clinton has enough backers that, those backers would have played dirty and dragged his grieving family through the mud, and he wouldn't want to put them through that.

Joe Biden says Hillary backers 'would stop at nothing' | Daily Mail Online

 

[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

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

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 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

Why is that fair?

MartyBegan, unlike our previous presidents, president Trump has chosen not to publicly reveal his tax returns. Refer to
Donald Trump’s Tax Documents From 2005

If I could see the accompanying statement where his attorneys explains such a loss, I might be more sympathetic.

Line #21, Other income: - $103, 201, 242. - Loss
Line #38, Adjusted gross income: $ 49, 592, 825.

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.
That's an effective rate of 10.7%, (i.e. less than 11% of his adjusted gross income.
To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Unfortunately for Donald Trump,
Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.
Line #48, Foreign taxes credits: - $ 23, 940. Cr
Line #57 Self employmet tax: $ 1, 887, 596.
--------------------
Line #63, Total tax: $38, 435, 451.

Now if you think that almost 38 million dollars in taxes seems a bit to high for less than 50 million dollars of adjusted gross income, I may agree with you; except that President Trump chooses not to continue the example of our prior presidents; president Trump does not release his tax forms and the Trump family retains active control of his enterprises and his assets.

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%? The maximum tax rate wasn't near that high in 2005. What's President Trump hiding?

Respectfully, Supposn

But his accountants whittled down the taxes foran
adjusted gross income of almost 50 million dollars, to
Line #44, Tax: $ 5, 310, 616.

He had itemized deductions of $17 million.
Did you miss that?

We can only speculate on his claimed loss in excess of 103 million dollars or what's in that the remainder of his forms and accompanying letters of explanations that would justify an effective tax rate of 77.5%?

Line #45, Alternative minimum tax: $31, 261, 179.

To put that in prospective, a low wage employee that may pay little or no income taxes,
pays 7.65% of his entire wages only for FICA payroll tax. Does that seem fair?

Does the low wage worker want to collect Social Security?
What should they pay in FICA tax to support their retirement?