4 ms·

Yet the punitive AMT still exists and ensnares basically everyone making between 150-400K and who lives in a high-tax state (which, conveniently, are where most

by gergles 13y ago

Yet the punitive AMT still exists and ensnares basically everyone making between 150-400K and who lives in a high-tax state (which, conveniently, are where most of the jobs paying that amount are.) But don't worry, as usual, if you're rich enough, you play by a different set of rules and can hide your money in shell trusts and schemes and pay nothing. Disgusting - give us the FairTax already.

minikites 13y ago
10 times the U.S. median income isn't "rich enough"?
- moron4hire 13y ago
  My wife and I together make $150k in the DC suburbs. I'm trying to convince her that we need to move so we could afford to live on one income and maybe have kids some day. For sure, we aren't hurting. The only debt we have is the one-bedroom condo next to a highway and in the flight path of an airport we live in (well, and a car, but we could pay it off in cash tomorrow if need be, which would be stupid because the APR on the loan is less than 1%). But it's extremely frustrating that this condo would translate to a 5 bedroom house with an acre of land where I grew up a mere 3 hours from here. And that's really only because, for the first 15 years of our careers we've lived within our means and have not had children. $150k is not what it's cracked up to be. If one of us lost our jobs, we would definitely have to move. Unfortunately, hers is tied to this area, so if it were me to lose the job, we'd be royally screwed.
  - justinsteele 13y ago
    I don't think "royally screwed" is the phrase you are looking for. There may not be comparably nice homes for cheaper in the area near your wife's work, but there are millions living on < 150k near you.
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      Yes, quite near me, as there is a Section 8 housing zone just two blocks from us. And you have to define your terms here. What do you mean by "living"? If you mean, "able to feed themselves and live under a roof", that's not living, that's subsisting. I'm talking about being more than just a serf and actually making forward progress in life. Sure, the bartender at the insanely overpriced place a few blocks from us probably only makes $60k, but he also probably lives with a roommate in a tiny apartment, still owes money on a 7 year old car, has no assets, has no savings, has no health insurance, has no chance of retiring at ANY age. At this point, I don't think there is anything within our current distance to her job (20 minutes) that A) we would be eligible for, and B) would be cheaper. I telecommute. If we both had to drive an hour to work, then we'd have to buy a second car and the increased transportation costs would certainly eclipse any savings in housing. Mind you, an hour away in DC is 15 miles on a good day. There are people who work here for half of what we make, and they commute 2 hours to work every morning. I hope you're not suggesting that that is a livable scenario. "Well, it is for them." Maybe for them (I'd argue they are sending themselves to an early grave, but I digress), but not for society as a whole. At that point, if we're living 2 hours away, we might as well be working for less where we lived. Thus my point: we can't live and work here for much less than we're already making.
  - jskonhovd 13y ago
    I understand that. I just moved back to my home town from Nashville. I am paying the same amount for my 3 bedroom home as my studio apartment. I must say my wife and I are much happier, and it will be great to have our parents around when we have kids.
- anonymouscowar1 13y ago
  Not if the tax bracket gets lower at 20-50x the median income. Tax brackets should be monotonically increasing.
- er35826 13y ago
  The gp isn't using the same definition of 'rich enough'. You're inferring that rich enough comment to mean "rich enough to live comfortably on and afford the things I need/want". Instead the gp is talking about a threshold of "rich enough" where you can roll your money into these GRATs and other investment vehicles. It requires a far greater level of wealth, because you're living on the returns from investments and financial objects entirely, and in order for those returns to be enough to live on, you need a much bigger chunk of money than 150k a year.
Nursie 13y ago
FairTax is totally unfair. The rich pay less because they spend less as a proportion of their income than the middle classes. The poor pay less because they are given exemptions, or a pay boost equivalent to the tax they pay. The government needs the same amount of money and can you guess who gets to bear the brunt of that? That's right, the middle classes get to shoulder even more of the tax burden. No thanks!
- chaostheory 13y ago
  > The rich pay less because they spend less as a proportion of their income than the middle classes. Yes but this is already happening right? Isn't it far easier for them to keep lobbying for new tax loopholes as older ones get closed, than it is to avoid a flat tax? Am I missing something? > The poor pay less because they are given exemptions, or a pay boost equivalent to the tax they pay. I've never heard about this. Can you give more details?
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> Yes but this is already happening right? Not to the extent it would under "Fair Tax", no. >> Isn't it far easier for them to keep lobbying for new tax loopholes as older ones get closed, than it is to avoid a flat tax? Am I missing something? It makes it far easier for far more people at the higher end of the income scale to pay a lot less tax and codifies regressive taxation as the intent of law. Make no mistake, the people who came up with the scheme would not be supporting it if they didn't stand to benefit from it, significantly. It puts their 'loophole' way out front and legitimises it. >> I've never heard about this. Can you give more details? Fundamental to the scheme is that the poor would get some sort of tax credit, possibly an annual payment, in order to offset the new sales tax, where previously they would have paid little to no income tax. This is not the part of the scheme I object to. The re-balancing of burden onto the middle classes, and in a way that affects those with lower incomes more than higher incomes, is why I think the scheme is a failure from its very conception. You may have the kind of economic ethics that support a tax that declines as a percentage of income as income rises, or even argue that all people should pay the same lump sum in tax, that's up to you. Personally I can't get behind that.
adrr 13y ago
Fair tax shifts the burden of taxes to the poor who spend majority of their income. AMT hits upper middle who end paying for everything as the non earned income people have lower tax burdens. A flat tax is the most fair on all incomes(capital gain, dividends, standard income,gift/estate).

by gergles 13y ago

minikites 13y ago

10 times the U.S. median income isn't "rich enough"?

moron4hire 13y ago
My wife and I together make $150k in the DC suburbs. I'm trying to convince her that we need to move so we could afford to live on one income and maybe have kids some day. For sure, we aren't hurting. The only debt we have is the one-bedroom condo next to a highway and in the flight path of an airport we live in (well, and a car, but we could pay it off in cash tomorrow if need be, which would be stupid because the APR on the loan is less than 1%). But it's extremely frustrating that this condo would translate to a 5 bedroom house with an acre of land where I grew up a mere 3 hours from here. And that's really only because, for the first 15 years of our careers we've lived within our means and have not had children. $150k is not what it's cracked up to be. If one of us lost our jobs, we would definitely have to move. Unfortunately, hers is tied to this area, so if it were me to lose the job, we'd be royally screwed.
- justinsteele 13y ago
  I don't think "royally screwed" is the phrase you are looking for. There may not be comparably nice homes for cheaper in the area near your wife's work, but there are millions living on < 150k near you.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    Yes, quite near me, as there is a Section 8 housing zone just two blocks from us. And you have to define your terms here. What do you mean by "living"? If you mean, "able to feed themselves and live under a roof", that's not living, that's subsisting. I'm talking about being more than just a serf and actually making forward progress in life. Sure, the bartender at the insanely overpriced place a few blocks from us probably only makes $60k, but he also probably lives with a roommate in a tiny apartment, still owes money on a 7 year old car, has no assets, has no savings, has no health insurance, has no chance of retiring at ANY age. At this point, I don't think there is anything within our current distance to her job (20 minutes) that A) we would be eligible for, and B) would be cheaper. I telecommute. If we both had to drive an hour to work, then we'd have to buy a second car and the increased transportation costs would certainly eclipse any savings in housing. Mind you, an hour away in DC is 15 miles on a good day. There are people who work here for half of what we make, and they commute 2 hours to work every morning. I hope you're not suggesting that that is a livable scenario. "Well, it is for them." Maybe for them (I'd argue they are sending themselves to an early grave, but I digress), but not for society as a whole. At that point, if we're living 2 hours away, we might as well be working for less where we lived. Thus my point: we can't live and work here for much less than we're already making.
- jskonhovd 13y ago
  I understand that. I just moved back to my home town from Nashville. I am paying the same amount for my 3 bedroom home as my studio apartment. I must say my wife and I are much happier, and it will be great to have our parents around when we have kids.
anonymouscowar1 13y ago
Not if the tax bracket gets lower at 20-50x the median income. Tax brackets should be monotonically increasing.
er35826 13y ago
The gp isn't using the same definition of 'rich enough'. You're inferring that rich enough comment to mean "rich enough to live comfortably on and afford the things I need/want". Instead the gp is talking about a threshold of "rich enough" where you can roll your money into these GRATs and other investment vehicles. It requires a far greater level of wealth, because you're living on the returns from investments and financial objects entirely, and in order for those returns to be enough to live on, you need a much bigger chunk of money than 150k a year.

Nursie 13y ago

FairTax is totally unfair. The rich pay less because they spend less as a proportion of their income than the middle classes. The poor pay less because they are given exemptions, or a pay boost equivalent to the tax they pay. The government needs the same amount of money and can you guess who gets to bear the brunt of that? That's right, the middle classes get to shoulder even more of the tax burden. No thanks!

chaostheory 13y ago
> The rich pay less because they spend less as a proportion of their income than the middle classes. Yes but this is already happening right? Isn't it far easier for them to keep lobbying for new tax loopholes as older ones get closed, than it is to avoid a flat tax? Am I missing something? > The poor pay less because they are given exemptions, or a pay boost equivalent to the tax they pay. I've never heard about this. Can you give more details?
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> Yes but this is already happening right? Not to the extent it would under "Fair Tax", no. >> Isn't it far easier for them to keep lobbying for new tax loopholes as older ones get closed, than it is to avoid a flat tax? Am I missing something? It makes it far easier for far more people at the higher end of the income scale to pay a lot less tax and codifies regressive taxation as the intent of law. Make no mistake, the people who came up with the scheme would not be supporting it if they didn't stand to benefit from it, significantly. It puts their 'loophole' way out front and legitimises it. >> I've never heard about this. Can you give more details? Fundamental to the scheme is that the poor would get some sort of tax credit, possibly an annual payment, in order to offset the new sales tax, where previously they would have paid little to no income tax. This is not the part of the scheme I object to. The re-balancing of burden onto the middle classes, and in a way that affects those with lower incomes more than higher incomes, is why I think the scheme is a failure from its very conception. You may have the kind of economic ethics that support a tax that declines as a percentage of income as income rises, or even argue that all people should pay the same lump sum in tax, that's up to you. Personally I can't get behind that.

adrr 13y ago

Fair tax shifts the burden of taxes to the poor who spend majority of their income. AMT hits upper middle who end paying for everything as the non earned income people have lower tax burdens. A flat tax is the most fair on all incomes(capital gain, dividends, standard income,gift/estate).