Talk:Alternative Minimum Tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the Project's priority scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] NPOV

This page needs updates. As it is, it does not comply with the NPV rules.

Edited to remove non-npov statements made at end of previous edit without citations.

I just edited the article to try to improve the NPOV situation. Please make comments on my success here. Pdbailey 14:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I just put an NPOV template in the bottom section which seems pro-Republican and anti-Democrat.Squad51 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the template to the whole article; another sections seems to imply that it damages the economy, which I would tend to disagree with. This article is also too technical and needs some cleanup.Squad51 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you specifically state what you think the problem is? On the section you just NPOVed.... the AMT hits medium to high income individuals and families with large income tax deductions. Because state income taxes are deductible from federal income taxes, the AMT has a tendency to hit individuals in high tax states, such as California, New York, New Jersey, etc... As it turns out, these states tend to be on the coast and generally vote for democrats. Maybe its a bit cynical, but Republicans, who are normally concerned with high taxes, have been less concerned with the AMT. Mgunn 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On the harm from the AMT... Any tax causes distortion of economic activity, and economic theory says the harm increases with the square of the tax rate. Any non-Pigouvian tax is automatically harmful. The general policy question is whether the government spending is worth more the harm caused by the tax. That said the AMT has some structure that is considered less harmful than the standard tax system (it has fewer deductions) and some features that are considered more harmful (poor treatment of savings, rates might be excessively high). -- Mgunn 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So it seems the NPOV tag has been removed, but I'm certainly not satisfied, and I'm not sure why it's been removed. It's worth noting, for example, that criticisms abound, but nowhere in the article is a defense of the AMT presented -- and certainly this isn't because defenses of the policy don't exist. I'm putting the template back. Pstinchcombe 21:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag, I feel the article is nonbiased, perhaps the next time you put it back on, you should justify why, you feel its NPOV, the only defense of the policy is lost money to the government. --208.54.14.27 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

_______________

Just a reader here ....

You write "The burden of computing AMT and the disallowance of deductions for state and local income taxes magnify criticisms of the AMT." and then only expand on the disallowance of deductions, not the burden of computing the AMT.

What's the cost in lost productivity, increased cost of prepared returns, trees wasted as paper? My own experience suggests it adds about 1/3 more pages and at least that much cost to my prepared returns.

Thanks!

_______________

More and more individual taxpayers are falling into what is be called the "AMT" trap. For many taxpayers, the common question is, "How do I avoid AMT". So how do you avoid AMT, simple have less tax preference deductions on your Schedule A. The biggest tax preference item on your Scedule A is state income taxes and real estate taxes. In any given year, if your Alternative Minimum Taxable Income (AMTI) is greater than your Regular Taxable Income, you may want to push your last real estate tax payment and state estimated taxes into the upcoming year. If the upcoming year is projected to have more income than the current year you should do it since there would be no tax benefit in the current anyway.

For more information about AMT contact Brian McGovern at www.mcssllc.com.

_______________

The following appears to be a collection of subordinate clauses and prepositional phrases: "For example, if an asset (stock or bond) holder would pay less taxes than they would lose in value if they were to hold a losing stock until you can balance the sale of the money losing stock with the sale of a money making stock during the same tax year. " I am unable to identify the subject and predicate here. "A verb, Senator Kennedy... We need a verb." - Gary Trudeau

131.81.200.158 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] figure

I just added a figure and would love comments on it. If anyone can see errors in my calculation or wants to see changes you can either make them (I've included the code, and you can edit it are run it in the GPLed statistics programing language called R) or you can make comments and I'll try to incorporate them. Pdbailey 18:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent edit by 134.173.152.125 in ``Arguments against repealing the AMT

134.173.152.125 just removed "Repealing the AMT would be decrease revenue more than repealing income tax itself." [1] with a edit comment that, "mis-cites source, absurd conclusion." The Washington Post writes, "By 2008, it would cost the Treasury considerably less to repeal the ordinary income tax system than the alternative minimum tax, according to the Tax Policy Center, jointly run by the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute." I think this is a reasonably faithful reproduction of the claim, am I missing something? Pdbailey 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with the edits of 134.173.152.125? It's been a few days and I've gotten no response so I'm tempted to add the text back.Pdbailey 12:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the source and do think that it is worth having in the article, however, it needs to state that this is the opinion of the Tax Policy Center. Morphh ^(talk) 13:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was confused because of the wording. I read "income tax itself" as equaling non-AMT tax plus AMT tax, since AMT is a part of the total income tax revenue. With that interpretation of the wording, it doesn't make sense that repealing AMT (a part of income tax) would cost more than repealing the entire income tax system. I support the re-inclusion of the text so long as it is reworded to avoid ambiguity. Perhaps it could say something like "Repealing the AMT would decrease revenue more than repealing the ordinary (non-AMT) income tax system." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.152.125 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I think what would be best is if you read what is on the page now and raise concerns here. Pdbailey 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)