Debunking liberal myths about Republicans and the AMT
Liberals claim that Republicans are at fault for the AMT. Nothing could be further from the truth!
You have to be ignorant of history to allege that Republicans are at fault for the AMT. History proves otherwise.
In 1993, the last time that Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, Congress raised the AMT rates and failed to index the exemption amounts for inflation.
o But for the 1993 increase and its failure to index for inflation, only 2.6 million tax filers would be subject to an AMT penalty next year rather than the projected 25 million under current law.
Under Republican control, Congress passed The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1999, which contained a provision to repeal the AMT.
o With no Senate Democrats supporting it, the bill passed the Senate and Congress only to be later vetoed by President Clinton on September 23, 1999.
During the recent Budget Resolution debate, three Republican amendments would have reduced or eliminated the impact of the AMT. However, only one Democrat Senator voted “yes” for just one of the three amendments relating to AMT.
And:
Democratic claims that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for much of the current AMT problem are inaccurate. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 not only provided needed income tax relief, but also provided AMT relief as well. The 2001 act permanently allowed the child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, and the IRA contribution credit to be claimed against a taxpayer’s AMT. In addition, the act increased the exemption amount through 2004.12 “Since the 2001 tax relief bill, the Finance Committee has produced packages to continue to increase the exemption amounts to keep taxpayers ahead of inflation, with the most recent being the Tax Increase and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which increased the AMT exemption to $62,550 for joint returns and $42,500 for individuals through the end of 2006.
Let's check out some Democrat quotes on the AMT during the "miracle economy" days of the Clinton administration and years prior when the AMT really did only affect relatively few taxpayers (as intended).
[Republicans] eliminate the alternative minimum tax that guarantees that the wealthiest of Americans will pay some kind of tax.…[They] give the wealthiest of Americans an exemption from the alternative minimum tax that guarantees fairness.
Senator John Kerry, Floor Statement, August 5, 1999
By raising the income tax rate to 31 percent, phasing out personal exemptions, limiting deductions for taxpayers earning over $100,000 and increasing the alternative minimum tax, this bill ensures that those with the ability to pay contribute to the deficit reduction package.
Senator Patrick Leahy, Floor Statement, October 27, 1990
We have designed a package to present to our colleagues to try to improve the package, to try to have one that is more fair to the middle class and to the other groups we have identified. We have done that by taking the top rate to 33 percent…increasing the alternative minimum tax for those who seek to avoid tax liability.
Senator Kent Conrad, Floor Statement, October 17, 1990
Surely such a "golden age" was the perfect time to get rid of the AMT instead of expanding it? Surely Democrats should have been fixing the AMT back when it only affected relatively few taxpayers to prevent such problems from arising in the first place? Ah, but you see, they did foresee the huge increase in revenues coming from the middle class due to inflationary "bracket creep". Democrats love bracket creep because it is a stealth tax hike. That's why they call fixes to the AMT as "tax cuts" and assert they are "for the rich". (Well duh, the tax is designed to tax the rich!)
The fact is that revenues are pouring into the federal government. There is no need to "pay" for the elimination of the AMT or restricting it to the truly rich and then indexing it for inflation.
It is curious that the Democrat notion of "pay-go" is that any tax eliminated must be "paid for" with new taxes while actual increases in tax revenues do not have to be offset by tax rate cuts.
But hey, to them it is their money, not yours. You should be grateful they let you keep as much as they do.
You have to be ignorant of history to allege that Republicans are at fault for the AMT. History proves otherwise.
In 1993, the last time that Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, Congress raised the AMT rates and failed to index the exemption amounts for inflation.
o But for the 1993 increase and its failure to index for inflation, only 2.6 million tax filers would be subject to an AMT penalty next year rather than the projected 25 million under current law.
Under Republican control, Congress passed The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1999, which contained a provision to repeal the AMT.
o With no Senate Democrats supporting it, the bill passed the Senate and Congress only to be later vetoed by President Clinton on September 23, 1999.
During the recent Budget Resolution debate, three Republican amendments would have reduced or eliminated the impact of the AMT. However, only one Democrat Senator voted “yes” for just one of the three amendments relating to AMT.
And:
Democratic claims that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for much of the current AMT problem are inaccurate. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 not only provided needed income tax relief, but also provided AMT relief as well. The 2001 act permanently allowed the child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, and the IRA contribution credit to be claimed against a taxpayer’s AMT. In addition, the act increased the exemption amount through 2004.12 “Since the 2001 tax relief bill, the Finance Committee has produced packages to continue to increase the exemption amounts to keep taxpayers ahead of inflation, with the most recent being the Tax Increase and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which increased the AMT exemption to $62,550 for joint returns and $42,500 for individuals through the end of 2006.
Let's check out some Democrat quotes on the AMT during the "miracle economy" days of the Clinton administration and years prior when the AMT really did only affect relatively few taxpayers (as intended).
[Republicans] eliminate the alternative minimum tax that guarantees that the wealthiest of Americans will pay some kind of tax.…[They] give the wealthiest of Americans an exemption from the alternative minimum tax that guarantees fairness.
Senator John Kerry, Floor Statement, August 5, 1999
By raising the income tax rate to 31 percent, phasing out personal exemptions, limiting deductions for taxpayers earning over $100,000 and increasing the alternative minimum tax, this bill ensures that those with the ability to pay contribute to the deficit reduction package.
Senator Patrick Leahy, Floor Statement, October 27, 1990
We have designed a package to present to our colleagues to try to improve the package, to try to have one that is more fair to the middle class and to the other groups we have identified. We have done that by taking the top rate to 33 percent…increasing the alternative minimum tax for those who seek to avoid tax liability.
Senator Kent Conrad, Floor Statement, October 17, 1990
Surely such a "golden age" was the perfect time to get rid of the AMT instead of expanding it? Surely Democrats should have been fixing the AMT back when it only affected relatively few taxpayers to prevent such problems from arising in the first place? Ah, but you see, they did foresee the huge increase in revenues coming from the middle class due to inflationary "bracket creep". Democrats love bracket creep because it is a stealth tax hike. That's why they call fixes to the AMT as "tax cuts" and assert they are "for the rich". (Well duh, the tax is designed to tax the rich!)
The fact is that revenues are pouring into the federal government. There is no need to "pay" for the elimination of the AMT or restricting it to the truly rich and then indexing it for inflation.
It is curious that the Democrat notion of "pay-go" is that any tax eliminated must be "paid for" with new taxes while actual increases in tax revenues do not have to be offset by tax rate cuts.
But hey, to them it is their money, not yours. You should be grateful they let you keep as much as they do.