It has good elements. I think the Alternative Minimum Tax should be done away with, and that it makes sense to do away with it as part of a broader tax reform that makes the tax code simpler and more pro-growth. Giving taxpayers a choice of whether to file under the old tax system or the new reformed one also makes sense.
But I would prefer that the tax cut be coupled with spending cuts, and I’m not sure, in the present political environment, it makes sense to promote a tax cut without such spending cuts. The reformed system that the conservatives put in place also needs some work. That system raises taxes on child-rearing, replacing the current tax credit with a measly $350 benefit for low-income and middle-income workers.
The big winners under this plan are childless affluent couples living in high-tax states. As written, that is, it’s a great tax cut for the blue states. But it could be modified to address this concern.
What’s not to like? It’d be nice to see the HRC, LCR or the other Gay Acronyms get behind this tax break for our community. Fat chance! (Oops, sorry…. didn’t mean to bring Algore into this.)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
So DINCs are a constituency? Is that a Gay Acronym? 🙂
But of course being gay does not equal being childless. Or being affluent.
Hey, gay people love the taxes and loss of liberty, or else they wouldn’t be voting 75% for the glorious vanguard of international socialism.
Such a good posting and a recommendation we should all get behind….until you ruined it with a childish insult directed at a politician you disagree with. But sadly not unexpected.
Just think, if we got a tax cut, the gay left would have more money to flush away on the candidates who pretend to give a rotten damn.
But I would prefer that the tax cut be coupled with spending cuts
I haven’t read all the details of this plan but what I have read says that this is tax rate cut, not a tax cut (ie a reduction in taxes paid ). Big difference. It keeps taxes collected as a percentage of GDP roughly the same.
From what I can tell, once you dump all of your deductions you can take under the current system, you end up paying roughly the same amount of taxes with the new lower tax rate (but without all of the complexities of our current system).
Couldn’t the same be said for the FairTax act? I am shocked that the gay community isn’t rallying for any and all tax alternatives that help our community.
Ok, I’m not really shocked. They are all run by the left so they would never jump at the chance to help our community if it meant hurting the other Democrat causes.
It really shows their priorities.
Did someone finally look at the 2000 Census figures and realize how many Americans aren’t married? What took them so long. Every announcement of a tax cut talks about what it means for a family of four. That’s great but what about families of 2? What about single people? What about larger families?
I’m all for simplifying the tax code. And I think we could easily find some fat in the budget to offset the cuts if we really wanted to.
The Alternative Minimum Tax was enacted to catch the wealthy who used the system to avoid paying taxes. The $75,000 income that triggered the AMT has become so commonplace, that the tax has become an important cash cow for the government. The Alternative Minimum Tax should be repealed or the income level that triggers it should be indexed for inflation. The democrats need the AMT income to service their socialism. They would oppose its elimination and would have to find replacement for the current revenues if it were indexed.
I do not see how it affects gays in any specific ways, either negative or positive. It is tied more to income than marital status or size of the family. However, it does fall more heavily on married couples with dependents. In that respect, the AMT could be considered anti-marriage and anti-family for couples whose income is above $75,000.
The AMT is an amazing demonstration of the duplicity and greediness of the Democrat Party when coupled with S-CHIP expansion.
Notice how the Democrats shriek that families that make up to $82k should receive free health insurance for their kids — paid for by taxes that disproportionately affect and are paid largely by the very income groups that S-CHIP was created to help in the first place.
Then they use that break as an excuse for keeping the AMT in place as they rail about the wealthier families not paying “their fair share”.
In one fell swoop, they’ve raised taxes on the poor and kept wealthier families paying a crushing tax burden. They have increased the amount of money flowing to them while making more people dependent on them for welfare.
A better idea would be to keep S-CHIP focused on the families that really need it using the current taxing structure and to repeal the AMT so that the families who “need” the S-CHIP extension would spend less on taxes, thus allowing them to purchase their own health insurance as they choose.
But it will never happen, because it allows people to keep their own money and make their own choices — which is antithetical to everything for which the Democrat Party stands.