Taxpayer's Choice Act

[lester1/2jr]

act

Michelle Bachman used to be known mainly for  practically making out with george Bush at the last state of the union.  But I've been seeing her on C SPAN and on CNBC and she seems to understand the problems with taxes and spending better than most in washington, which isn't much of a compliment but still.

Contact: Stephen Miller or Mary Vought 202-225-2331
 
 
Bachmann Fights for American Taxpayers
Hails Economic Agenda which Supports her ‘Taxpayers Choice Act’

 

 
 
 
Washington, D.C., Jun 11 -

Today, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-6) scored a big win for American taxpayers when her Taxpayer Choice Act was rolled out as the centerpiece of the Republican Economic Agenda to help America’s middle class.

"With skyrocketing gas and food costs, our nation’s families are struggling to make ends meet. It’s time that Washington work to give real relief to our hard-working taxpayers and help them afford what their families need and want. I’m honored that my legislation, H.R. 3818, the Taxpayers Choice Act, is the leading legislation in the recently unveiled Republican Economic Agenda.

"Millions of American taxpayers are dramatically affected by the burdensome Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), forcing them to send even more of their hard- earned money to Washington. I strongly believe that the AMT must be repealed and that taxpayers deserve a choice in filing their taxes. H.R. 3818 would give taxpayers the option of paying either higher tax rates with more deductions or lower tax rates with no special deductions empowering taxpayers to choose an option that best fits their families’ needs.

"I will continue to work in Congress to see that families in Minnesota and all across the nation get help to make ends meet. This Republican Economic Agenda is just one step stone to helping the struggling middle-class get back on their feet."

The Taxpayer Choice Act (H.R. 3818), has three points:

1) Immediately, fully, and permanently repeal the current AMT;

2) Make permanent the current capital gains and dividends tax rates; and

3) Create a voluntary Simplified Tax that would give individuals the option of paying  under a highly simplified income tax system or under the regular income tax as it is structured now.
 
 

[Rev. Powell]

Quick thoughts on Bachmann's proposals:

1.  I think the AMT is unlikely to be repealed.  It would cause a revenue shortfall which would require raising tax rates on everyone else to compensate.  There's a reason everyone on both sides of the aisle admits the AMT is a crappy system, but they can never muster votes to repeal it.  It will probably just be inflation-adjusted so it traps less of the middle class.  Likely to be a popular proposal, though, and will allow Republican's to blame Democrats when it's voted down.

2. This would be a great idea.  Double taxation is a relic of a bygone era, is basically unfair, and lower tax rates stimulate the economy.  The proposal's a political loser, though.  Democrats will intone the magic phrase "tax cuts for the rich" and its DOA.

3.  An interesting idea with uncertain consequences.  I would imagine something like the following would happen if its instituted:

a. The rich, with access to accountants and financial planners, opt to fill out the longer forms to save money.  The poor who don't want to hire an accountant to do their taxes use the simple form, missing out on money-saving deductions.  Net effect is the poor end up paying proportionately more taxes.

b. Congress takes the ability to "opt-out" as license to micromanage the existing tax code even more, adding more requirements to get generally useful deductions and more porkbarrel deductions for special interests. 

I suppose it could work, depending on how it's structured, but the effect on revenue of such a dramatic change would be uncertain.  Could be popular with voters, though, as it sounds good on its face and many people probably prefer simplicity to to getting a few more marginal deductions.

[lester1/2jr]

they passed something today about the AMT.  It wasn't this but probably readjusted the AMT and added some democrat  piffle about oil copmanies and the top 2 percent.


I think the simplified tax form would be difficult for even some of the very rich to resist, and it would be harder for them to cheat if there are fewer people using the form with all the deductions.  personally, i find the entirety of the income tax a violation of ones right to privacy.  Why should i justify expenditures to someone other than myself?   to me a widescreen tv is a business expense because I relax in front of it after i work!


"revenue shortfall"

I saw this same senator bachman on cnbc this morning with charlie rangel.  she had the radical idea of spending less, which rangle couldn't fathom

[Rev. Powell]

they passed something today about the AMT.  It wasn't this but probably readjusted the AMT and added some democrat  piffle about oil copmanies and the top 2 percent.

I'm sure it was a slight readjustment even though I haven't seen the legislation.  These things constantly have to be readjusted.  If it were a vote for repeal it would be all over the news.

I think the simplified tax form would be difficult for even some of the very rich to resist, and it would be harder for them to cheat if there are fewer people using the form with all the deductions. 

Not at all hard to resist if your accountant says he can save you, say, $5,000 in taxes for a $1000 fee.   You may have a point about it being easier to police, though.

personally, i find the entirety of the income tax a violation of ones right to privacy.  Why should i justify expenditures to someone other than myself?   to me a widescreen tv is a business expense because I relax in front of it after i work!

Well, you have the right to take a standard deduction if you don't want your private expenditures to be known.  I've never itemized just because its such a pain.

Your income is public information (for the limited purpose of assessing tax) by definition.

"revenue shortfall"

I saw this same senator bachman on cnbc this morning with charlie rangel.  she had the radical idea of spending less, which rangle couldn't fathom

Spending less would be great.  But I understand why Rangle couldn't fathom it.  Very little in the nation's recent history suggests Congress (elected by We the People) can restrain itself.  There was a balanced budget for a brief period in the 90s, so its possible in the short term at least, as long as we're temporarily prosperous and there aren't wars or other huge pressing issues to fund.

I give Bachmann style points for creativity in the choice of tax regimes plank, though.  I guess it couldn't be much worse than the current one size fits all approach.