Tax for wealthy seen as hitting middle class

WASHINGTON - An obscure tax intended to prevent wealthy individuals from dodging their income taxes will hit one-third of taxpayers by the end of the decade, private researchers say.

By 2010, many taxpayers who consider themselves middle-class families will pay the tax. It will hit 97 percent of married couples, with two or more children, who earn $75,000 to $100,000.

Researcher Leonard Burman, codirector of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said yesterday that repeal is the best way to prevent the tax from plaguing the middle class. ''But it would cost a lot,'' he said, estimating a nearly $1.5 trillion drain on the federal government through 2013 if the tax was repealed this year. The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

The tax, called the alternative minimum tax, started in 1970 after legislators found that some high-income households had used tax shelters to avoid paying any income taxes. It now imposes a complex accounting requirement on many taxpayers, forcing some to compute taxes twice, once under standard procedures and again under the alternative minimum tax.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/196/nation/Tax_for_wealthy_seen_as_hitting_middle_class+.shtml

Goebbels v2.0: New and improved! For those trying to loot tresauries and take over nations with stronger traditions of liberty and dissent than Goebbels v1.0.

Manipulate the tax structure with tax breaks for the Aristocracy such that the Alternative Minimum Tax starts hitting the wretched, dying Middle Class, who will then clamor for it's repeal.

Evil genius.

I think this was a tax that was implemented without an indexing clause. Now $75,000 to $100,000 is considered to be middle class, but in 1970 it was the target group. Computing the tax twice i8s not dificult unless you actually are attempting to shield a pile of income. In my case, where all I have for deduction is a house and some charitable contributions, I can compute the alternative minimum in a few minutes.

(and probably other tax preparation software) does it for you automatically.

not like this was a surprise. Most of us have seen this coming for years. We need to have Congress address this issue now.

We need a Dem/progressive Congress to address it.

I don't care WHAT Congess fixes it, as long as it gets fixed. Are you saying that if the Republican-controlled Congess fixed it, you would not accept it?

For anyone other than the wealthy anyway. Their idea of "fixing" it would be to eliminate it rather than adjusting it for inflation and/or discounting for today's dollars. All the repubs care to do is make the income tax system less progressive than it already is. So no, if the Republican-controlled Congess "fixed" it, I would not accept it.

And btw, just so you know, my feelings have nothing to do with personal gain- I am ALREADY getting hit with the AMT. My husband and I both make pretty good money and have no children, so we pay quite a bit in fed income taxes ourselves. I would actually personally benefit by the repubs eliminating it, but I don't think that's the fair way to "fix" it. I could be wrong, but I see that as the only option the repubs would pursue- in the name of helping the middle class. :eyes:

say I trusted them either. And acrording to many, if you pay the AMT you ARE the wealthy! I don't agree with that either, BTW.

and it's oh so easy.. instead of $75,000.. just raise it to $150,000.. That will still catch the rich tax-cheats and will spare the "middle class"....:)


No need to repeal it..

and while they are at it, they could eliminate the 87,000 cap on FICA..let the one who can best afford to pay, pay more..

Exempt the first $20,000 from the employee share of FICA while they are at it..

Those things would help middle incomers though, so we all know ("wink-wink-nod-nod") they would do no such thing... :(

Greedy warmongering bastards !!!!

And agree with your second ONLY if they also increase the amount one can receive in benefits. If I pay more into that insurance program, I want more back.

Go to 1969 levels of taxes (all taxes) for everyone, with the tax levels adjusted for 2003 dollars.

That, btw, was the last year we ran a surplus before the Clinton years.

That year the tax was far more progressive.

refresh us on what those tax levels were?

Let the tax stand for a while, wait until inflation brought the middle class under its auspices, then let them get soaked. Hello, regressive taxation.

Doesn't sound regressive to me...