How Bush Helped Create the AMT Problem

[ProSense]

How Bush Helped Create the AMT Problem

Submitted by Bill Scher on December 4, 2007 - 6:32pm.

President Bush is continuing to attack Congress for not yet passing legislation to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from making millions of Americans unfairly pay a greater than necessary share in taxes. He raised the issue three times in the last four days.

What Bush regularly leaves out is his own role in exacerbating the problem, using the AMT to hide the real cost of his reckless tax cuts, and expanding those affected in 2007 from 10 million taxpayers to more than 20 million.

On Friday, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reminded folks of recent history: (emphasis original)

<...>

All of Bush's current spin is to block the House bill, which dares to responsibly offset the cost of temporarily fixing the AMT by closing the ridiculous loophole that basically says hedge fund managers should pay less taxes than folks in every other occupation.

But the reality behind Bush's spin is another reminder that tax cuts are far from the solution for all problems at all times.

more

From the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

THE AMT’S GROWTH WAS NOT "UNINTENDED":
How the Administration and Congressional Leaders Anticipated
the AMT Problem and Knowingly Made it Worse

By Aviva Aron-Dine and Robert Greenstein

Various Administration officials, senators, and House members are urging Congress to waive its Pay-As-You-Go rules and deficit-finance the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) “patch.” The AMT’s explosive growth, they argue, was unanticipated and unintended, and so measures to prevent that growth should not have to be paid for. Even if the AMT’s growth were unanticipated, this would not justify waiving PAYGO for AMT relief. But the claim is also false.

To the contrary, lawmakers not only anticipated the AMT’s explosive growth, they counted on it to mask the cost of the 2001 tax cuts. The Administration and congressional tax writers were well aware that the legislation they pushed in 2001 would force millions more taxpayers to pay the AMT, which would take back part or all of their tax cuts and thereby reduce the 2001 tax bill’s apparent cost. More than two thirds of the cost of this year’s AMT patch is due to actions taken by Congress and the Administration in designing the 2001 (and 2003) tax cuts (see Figure 1).

As Charles Grassley, then Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in 2001, “President Bush’s plan bring millions more Americans into the AMT process; the Joint Tax Committee estimates that the Bush tax plan will nearly double the number of American taxpayers affected by the AMT.”

(For more such comments from 2001, as well as some quite different recent comments by Senator Grassley and the Administration, see the box below.)



more

It certainly shouldn't surprise Republicans that Bush's tax cuts are a failure!

Family tax needs fixing; Mid-income households taking a pounding

Boston Herald
April 17, 2006
By John Kerry

This time of year, millions of middle-class families are feeling the pinch of the family tax as they fill out their taxes.

Teachers, police officers, nurses and hard-working families with household incomes in the middle-income tax brackets will be forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax penalty, sometimes thousands of dollars.

Families who hoped to use a tax refund or money saved the hard way during the year for college tuition, a down payment or health- care costs will end up in the red because of the Alternative Minimum Tax which would be far more appropriately named the family tax. But watching Congress and this White House drag their feet on a family tax fix, you would think there is nothing wrong with middle- class families taking a pounding on their taxes in an economy that already squeezes their budgets when they pay bills or fill up the car at the pump.

The problems with the AMT are nothing new. We've known this family tax was coming for years. Yet the same Congress which has handed out unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthy for six years running has failed to fix the family tax once and for all.

The administration's latest budget actually subjects an additional 1.2 million Americans to the AMT.

Without congressional action, the AMT will place this undue family tax on 19 million working families in 2006 and almost 31 million families by 2010.

Massachusetts taxpayers already have the sixth heaviest AMT burden in the country.

We are at this point for three simple reasons that Washington refuses to address.

First, the AMT exemption amount has not been indexed for inflation.

Second, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts lowered the regular income tax rates without making the appropriate adjustments to the AMT.

Third, capital gains rates have been drastically reduced, but they still are not calculated as part of AMT income.

Like the AMT itself, these oversights may seem mundane, but the results are devastating. Families with incomes under $200,000 will be hurt more than people making over $1 million a year.

The AMT unfairly punishes families with children. The more children in a family, the lower the income necessary to trigger the AMT. For example, if no action is taken in 2006, a family with four children with an income of $58,500 would be subject to the AMT while a family with one child would have to make $72,000 to be affected. By 2010, 89 percent of the families with two or more children with income between $75,000 and $100,000 will be impacted by the AMT.

Some families are already suffering this penalty.

The Klaassens of Marquette, Kan., were forced to pay over $1,000 in AMT penalties because they claimed exemptions for their 10 children.

This family tax has been hidden from the American people for too long. Washington so far seems content to continue collecting the extra revenue at the expense of middle-class families who desperately need the money in their pockets. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans get a permanent tax cut they don't really need, and more than 1 million middle-class families get an unfair, unintended tax they can't afford. That's just plain wrong.

The AMT was created because, back in January 1969, Americans learned that 155 taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 had somehow paid no federal income tax. Congress received more letters of protest about these 155 wealthy individuals than about the Vietnam War, and Washington responded with the AMT.

Now the AMT is outdated - instead of 155 Americans getting an unfair tax break, millions of Americans are getting an incredibly raw deal.

It's time for Americans to once again mobilize and force Congress to restore some fundamental fairness in our tax code.

John Kerry is a senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Senate Finance Committee.

Foreign debt: Bush did more damage in 7 yrs than 42 presidents in 224 yrs (images of Bush's economy)

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

1. Just reading this makes my head spin. Damned IRS needs

a good rehaul.