Invitation: Boston Tea Party, 2005 Version
Hmmmm, Does this mean that gun-grabbing Yanque Chuckie Rangel is in favor of of the AMT or against? After all it is money and I can imagine him sitting in a bathroom stall somewhere…
“In a letter circulated among House lawmakers, Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record) of New York, the top Democrat on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said the alternative minimum tax could impose a tax increase as large as $3,640 on some families next year.”
Posted by yatalli
12/06/2005 at 11:30 AM
All Americans are rich. President Bush pointed out yesterday to the John Deere employees that America should brace for higher taxes because his tax cuts will soon disappear. Moderates and liberals want to raise taxes, figures.
Posted by Z Woof
12/06/2005 at 11:43 AM
This is what it takes! Let the AMT hit more people just in time for the 2006 elections. Can anyone say “filibuster-buster??”
Funny how JFK’s policies of lower taxes and strong defense and starting a war overseas made him a democrat demigod. Put the same traits on a republican and you have “Hitler.”
The reason the AMT is hitting more folks is, according to some, “inflation.” Tho that may be part of the situation, maybe some of it is also increasing and spreading wealth.
Not an acceptable answer according to the Crew of Usual Suspects, tho....
It is inflation and not neccesarily from ‘increased wealth’. From what I understand, the cutoff number for the AMT (determined 30+ years ago) were never adjusted for inflation. BOHICA!
Check out:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/09/pf/taxes/amt_101/index.htm
The problem? What defined uber-rich in 1969, when the AMT was first enacted, has never been adjusted for inflation. That means what made you affluent back then doesn’t now—but you’re still taxed like it does.
If memory serves, the AMT nearly requires you to keep a second set of books, which I would imagine calls places an innocent victim under suspicion
Posted by yatalli
12/07/2005 at 02:26 AM
BOHICA!
