Discussion:AMT Patch
From TaxAlmanac
| Revision as of 01:33, 9 December 2007 Natalie (Talk | contribs) (Jessica, my unde) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 02:28, 9 December 2007 Skhyatt (Talk | contribs) (Jessica, you've) Next diff → |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| What's the solution? Involvement. One person really can make a difference. }} | What's the solution? Involvement. One person really can make a difference. }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Skhyatt|Date=9 December 2007|Text=Jessica, you've got my vote. :) | ||
| + | }} | ||
Revision as of 02:28, 9 December 2007
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> AMT Patch
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> AMT Patch
| 7 December 2007 | |
| From RIA this morning:
Compromise on AMT relief appears in sight On Dec. 6, shortly after a 46 to 48 Senate vote defeated a cloture motion on the House-passed AMT bill (H.R. 3996), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) offered to amend that bill to provide one-year AMT patch without offsets. He would move that proposed AMT amendment as a stand-alone bill, leaving the extenders package without a vehicle to move it. At the close of business on Dec. 6, Senate Republicans leaders were in the process of hotlining Reid's offer to call up the Senate revised AMT package. By a vote of 88-5, the Senate passed a no-offset, straight AMT patch by inserting an amendment (S.A. 3804). The House-passed H.R. 3996, “the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007,” carries a one-year AMT patch, extensions of numerous expiring tax breaks, plus home mortgage debt forgiveness relief and would fully offset these provisions with revenue raisers, including controversial provisions such as taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and basis reporting by brokers on sales of securities. The House Democratic leaders must accede to the Senate amendment and waive their PAYGO commitment to get a bill to the President's desk in short order to prevent the AMT problem from delaying the 2008 tax season. | |
| 7 December 2007 | |
| too late for no delays - the IRS says they need 10 weeks to reprogram their computers.
I'm sure our software vendors already have an update written. (I received my Drake early-bird version on November 30th this year and am already working with it - training, etc.) | |
| 7 December 2007 | |
| The whole thing is ridiculous and disgusts me. If there is no revenue offset, then it is paid for with debt. And interest accrues on the debt. And interest is paid by the taxpayers. Which means more taxes, but at a higher cost than if the revenue offset were identified now rather than later because of the interest.
I would like to be in charge of balancing the budget. I'd start at the top. Mr President, you don't need this, you don't need that, and we are cutting these perks because we need the cash. Congresspeople, all you do is posture and fight. We're cutting your number in half in both houses, because we sure don't need more of you, and even the current number is too many, and we're also reviewing your perks too. Because we need the cash and you all clearly can't handle the financial responsibilities, so we're taking over that task. And review all the bills and throw back every one with any pork. Then move on down from there. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 7 December 2007 |
| Actually, Jessica can help me push my wheelbarrow filled with Marks, ooooops Dollars, to the store to buy a loaf of bread someday.
These guys don't want to give anything back. They'd probably be happy if it could be paid for by lowering the 15% bracket to 40K for married couples. | |
| 7 December 2007 | |
| I agree with Jessica. What is so hard about running a budget without a deficit year after year? Committees are given carte blanche' over what they want and the government funds it with no revenue to offset. Then as she says, we are hit to paying interest on overdue debt.
Funny how Congress doesn't allow non profits to go over budget year after year without some sort of assurance or audit to keep the status, but our lovely government can be deficient in billions and nobody says a word..... I will NOT vote this coming election if there is no body who is worthwhile voting for. I vote every year, but the nominees are going to be dumb and dumber I am afraid.... | |
| December 8, 2007 | |
| How about that gym our fine congressmen and women (oops, pretty much only men) have available to them? They pay $20 per month. Can you imagine, $20 per month for a work out gym? Of course, it's only $20 because it's not a business - it's to facilitate exercise by the members of congress. There's a bill that includes $8M to renovate the building. Now that's what I call good use of taxpayer money . . . NOT. | |
| 8 December 2007 | |
| How dare they. I pay $29 to work out at a total dive because it is the only place in town open early enough. (I need to get home before my husband leaves for work because I don't want the kids home alone.) The place is disgusting. There's another place in town, it costs at least $100 more a month, and I would gladly pay it if it was open earlier.....and then our Congresspeople, who by the way work for us - we're the taxpayers and the voters - pay only $20 a month for a place that I presume is not a dive and allot themselves $8 million to make it better? Astounding. Infuriating.
The problem is that no one watches over them except us as individual voters with one vote each. And people vote according to their individual needs and the needs of their community, which encourages pork spending. What is the solution? | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 8 December 2007 |
| Unfortunately I don't think there is a solution. The good people don't want to run for office. Instead of voting FOR someone, most of the time we wind up voting AGAINST someone or the lesser of two evils. | |
| December 9, 2007 | |
| Jessica, my understanding of the gym is that it does not to be repaired. But they really should be paying more per month rather than relying on taxpayers to foot the bill.
| |
