5 ms·

> For that matter we should get rid of the AMT entirely. The fact that we have 2 separate tax systems for individuals is insane. It really is. The AMT is the

by rplst8 10y ago

> For that matter we should get rid of the AMT entirely. The fact that we have 2 separate tax systems for individuals is insane. It really is. The AMT is the perfect example of when you give someone an inch they take a mile, which is why some people fight so hard against the enactment of new taxes. The AMT was originally enacted to catch a handful (less than 200 I believe) people who were at the time of enactment (1969) very rich and who were paying no taxes. These people had an AGI of over $200,000. That's $1.2 million in today's dollars. The AMT now affects over three million tax payers, mostly because for many years, the exemption was not properly indexed to inflation.

MichaelBurge 10y ago
> The AMT is the perfect example of when you give someone an inch they take a mile, which is why some people fight so hard against the enactment of new taxes. When the politicians were first proposing the constitutional amendment that allowed income taxes, they were throwing numbers like 1% or 2% around. It took only 4 years from the ratification of the 16th amendment for the maximum tax rate to shoot up from 7% to 67%. Now you get an effective 50% tax rate in some states. No wonder office workers spend so much time unproductively checking email and Facebook - that's the half of their time they're giving to the government. Here's a history of the federal tax rate. Notice how it shoots up around World War 2, and takes a very long time to change even after the war ends. So it can't be that the taxes are high simply to fund government services that naturally arose: https://www.scribd.com/doc/190499803/Fed-U-S-Federal-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-History-1862-2013#fullscreen&from_embed https://www.scribd.com/doc/190499803/Fed-U-S-Federal-Individ... They should just repeal the 16th amendment.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  So you cap income tax at 2%. Congratulations you just tripled property tax and made sales tax 20%. Taxes are like wackamole. You can't just limit 1 tiny piece and expect anything to change. Furthermore you can't just lower the total take unless you want to explain where the cut is coming from. Less school funding? Less roads? Less police? Less Army? More debt?
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    My understanding is that the federal government cannot impose a property tax, without just distributing it to the states by population. My reading of the commerce clause is that they couldn't impose a sales tax on in-state commerce. So it's not like these went away after they gained the power to assess an income tax: they were never an option. As a general rule, you could remove any government agency created with the increase in wartime tax revenue after the war is over. That should get you back to the pre-war tax rate. I don't want to go down the entire list[1] of agencies, since it would take the thread too far off-topic(even this response is borderline). I should shift more work to the individual states. Also cut the military: They are so disorganized they're the only government branch that can't be audited[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_th... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1IG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1...
    - harryh 10y ago
      As a general rule, you could remove any government agency created with the increase in wartime tax revenue after the war is over. That should get you back to the pre-war tax rate. Pre war federal spending was ~10% of GDP. Currently we're at about 25%. So you want to cut federal spending by about 60%. Medicare is about 15% of the fed budget. Social Security is about 25%. That's the 40% you get to keep right there. You think we should cut literally everything else? Your assessment about what it would take to achieve the cuts you propose is not based in reality.
      - MichaelBurge 10y ago
        I would cut Medicare and Social Security entirely.
        brianwawok 10y ago
        Okay so what happens to the 30 million people that literally have nothing else to live on? 65 years old, no savings, failing health. Round them up and shoot them I guess?

by rplst8 10y ago

MichaelBurge 10y ago

> The AMT is the perfect example of when you give someone an inch they take a mile, which is why some people fight so hard against the enactment of new taxes. When the politicians were first proposing the constitutional amendment that allowed income taxes, they were throwing numbers like 1% or 2% around. It took only 4 years from the ratification of the 16th amendment for the maximum tax rate to shoot up from 7% to 67%. Now you get an effective 50% tax rate in some states. No wonder office workers spend so much time unproductively checking email and Facebook - that's the half of their time they're giving to the government. Here's a history of the federal tax rate. Notice how it shoots up around World War 2, and takes a very long time to change even after the war ends. So it can't be that the taxes are high simply to fund government services that naturally arose: https://www.scribd.com/doc/190499803/Fed-U-S-Federal-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-History-1862-2013#fullscreen&from_embed https://www.scribd.com/doc/190499803/Fed-U-S-Federal-Individ... They should just repeal the 16th amendment.

brianwawok 10y ago
So you cap income tax at 2%. Congratulations you just tripled property tax and made sales tax 20%. Taxes are like wackamole. You can't just limit 1 tiny piece and expect anything to change. Furthermore you can't just lower the total take unless you want to explain where the cut is coming from. Less school funding? Less roads? Less police? Less Army? More debt?
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  My understanding is that the federal government cannot impose a property tax, without just distributing it to the states by population. My reading of the commerce clause is that they couldn't impose a sales tax on in-state commerce. So it's not like these went away after they gained the power to assess an income tax: they were never an option. As a general rule, you could remove any government agency created with the increase in wartime tax revenue after the war is over. That should get you back to the pre-war tax rate. I don't want to go down the entire list[1] of agencies, since it would take the thread too far off-topic(even this response is borderline). I should shift more work to the individual states. Also cut the military: They are so disorganized they're the only government branch that can't be audited[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_th... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1IG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1...
  - harryh 10y ago
    As a general rule, you could remove any government agency created with the increase in wartime tax revenue after the war is over. That should get you back to the pre-war tax rate. Pre war federal spending was ~10% of GDP. Currently we're at about 25%. So you want to cut federal spending by about 60%. Medicare is about 15% of the fed budget. Social Security is about 25%. That's the 40% you get to keep right there. You think we should cut literally everything else? Your assessment about what it would take to achieve the cuts you propose is not based in reality.
    - MichaelBurge 10y ago
      I would cut Medicare and Social Security entirely.
      - brianwawok 10y ago
        Okay so what happens to the 30 million people that literally have nothing else to live on? 65 years old, no savings, failing health. Round them up and shoot them I guess?