Krem wrote: You should start getting mad at the government the moment you realize that there is nothing "Alternative" or "Minimum" about the Alternative Minimum Tax. (By the way, why is that OK when only the uber-wealthy get shafted by the gov't, but as soon as it's the middle class, you cry wolf?)
Basically, it's an almost flat rate tax (it's got two brackets 26% and 28%). If, after caluclating your regualr tax with all the deductions you wind up paying less than the AMT would have you pay, you have to pony up the difference. If the regular amount is more than the AMT, you do nothing
Just call me Robin Hood. :wink:
j/k
I didn't think rich people were getting shafted, it said it was stated around 155 families that found loopholes in the system. That's fair, perhaps they were just writing off as deducatibles something so freakin' expensive (private personal jets?) that it didn't affect even most of the upper class. Anyways, It was interesting to even see who they considered middle class now. I got something about that 26 flat rate too. But what I thought it meant was this. Let say, you have to pay 26% of your income in taxes, and you spent about 23 on your state (since your local doesn't count right?) and the federal would make you caugh up the other 3 percent. This ised to affect only people who paid alot to a city and/or state tax due to maybe multiple property ownershi? That's were I still lose it. Wouldn't a land owner pay more than 26% to a regional tax and there for be less effected by this than someone who just has broad taxes on their salary?
You know I don't believe in flat tax (which is what it sound like this is) that basically everyone pays 26%? :???: Its not about the rich getting shafted, i believe in incremental tax rates is all.
I_Was_Your_Sam wrote: omg.. dolce! this is weird. i also have been trying to read up on this. i exercised and sold some of my stock options from work. It was weird because i did not pay any taxes on them at all when i got the cash. but now that i am doing my income taxes, i may have to pay insane amounts!! #-o
no one told me this!
Krem, you're synopsis is the clearest I've read anywhere online.
Well I just read that it will affect property value and raise the expensive cost of living in four states, MA, CA, NY, and NJ. I'm trying to figure out how. With my sister moving to CA next year, me and my bro in NY, and the rest of my family in MA, it sure does seem like that's the states we'll be liviing in.  Go figure. I guess I'm comin' back to Chicago Sammy, its the last option remaining! \:D/
I'm just trying to figure out how this fits into property, future cost of living, and who it effects. ](*,)
Krem wrote: Heh, thanks Sam. I'd rather not have that knowledge, though
If anyone is still not clear on this, let me provide an example:
Suppose your income is $300,000 a year. You itemize your expenses, and based on that, your federal tax liability comes to, say, $50,000, which you pay. Your AMT bracket is 28% based on your income, so your AMT amount would be $84,000. So, on tax day, you have to cut the government a check for an additional $34,000. What's a few grand between friends, right?
However, if you didn't itemize your expenses, and your federal income liability was, say, $100,000, then you'd still be paying the $100,000.
I'm losing you on your example. Sorry, but up until this year, I;ve been a 1040 quickie girl.  I have itemized deducations and was an independant cotractor though in Chicago, so need to do the real thing this time around, as usual, I'm putting it off to the last minute. I'll get around to that in late March. As to this topic though, you're example actually confused me.
Your tax liability is what you need to pay taxes on right? Not what you actually give to the gov't. I thought if you had a liability of 84,000 than you'de need to pay 28% of that, and if you were liable for 50,000, you'de only have to pay 28% of that? Sorry I'm being so thick. 
Krem wrote: Archie Gates wrote:
I can't speak for her but from my point of view the difference is that the very wealthy make money off money. The middle and lower classes tend to make money off their labor. I have less of a problem taxing money than I do taxing labor.
The AMT is a good idea, it just needs to be updated to changing times.
Well no, I just consider it against cost of living. If you only make 20 k a year, and have to pay 25% of it, you're going to have 15 K left, and that's pretty hard to make ends meet. If you make 500 K, and have to pay 35% of it, you still have so much more than you know what to do with that you'll move to the burbs just to get a massive mantion and your bored kids can do drugs and have cell phones with all the celebrities numbers entered in. Also, How would you "update" the AMT?
Archie Gates wrote:
Wow, now you are the one engaging in stereotypes. Since when do Jews have some monopoly on making money off of money? Maybe I'm naive, but that wasn't my image of Jews, my image of them was just integrated regular Americans like everone else.
I wouldn't mind easing taxes on the super rich (not that they have ever been taxed much anyway) if 1) anti-trust laws were vigously enforced 2) estate taxes were raised sharply so that at least you could justify the rich as they are enjoying their own money they made, not something granpa handed down to them. You won't like this because you (from what I can tell) don't like restrictions in general economically or socially, but inheriting vast sums is un-American.
I think the low tax crowd would have more success with their views if they coupled them with higher taxes on inheritance. Similar to how I think they would have a lot more success with rights to drill oil in nature areas if they coupled it with raising mpg on vehicles and other conservation measures. But the current government doesn't like to compromise, it's their way or the highway. A shame because a lot could be accomplish if people would learn to package issues more effectively.
Nah, that's just our cover, :wink: we're actually quite special, and are going to rule the world.
I dont see your compromise discussion quite? Estate taxes are very high, but that's why alot of people sell everything, and isn't that money taxed on the year its made? In the form of income or gift or something?
Goldie wrote: Not sure if anyone above hit this.
Believe it or not, the AMT is a way that the IRS says to you. You have taken too many correct deductions and you aren't paying enough regular taxes.
So there is also an AMT = Alternate MINIMUM Tax which makes you calculate your taxes another way just to see if you took certain deduction which aren't allowed with the AMT.
Then you pay the greater or the 2 above taxes.
But they are correct deducations? Like transportation, and kids? I don't understand, too many correct deducations? Does that mean basically you found a way to make everything a write off because you had a smart tax attorney? Because that wouldn't be "correct" it would be loopholes right?
|
