How ironic. The Democrats are the ones trying to be fiscally prudent by finding other sources to replace the lost tax revenue while Republicans aren’t because the fixes would hurt their friends. Interesting story of why the AMT came into being and then became a ‘necessary’ evil to a money hungry Congress.

Millions of Tax Refunds Could Be Delayed

The Internal Revenue Service is looking hard at delaying the start of its filing season, set to kick off on Jan. 14, if Congress fails to pass legislation in the next two weeks. At issue is how to handle what could be a dramatic increase in the number of people facing a higher alternative minimum tax.
[…]
Aides on the taxwriting committees said they were unaware, at this point, of any suggestions to extend the April 15 filing deadline if the filing season is contracted because of the AMT dilemma.

The IRS oversight board, using past agency data, said that if the start of the filing season is pushed back two weeks to Jan. 28, it would delay some 6.7 million refunds totaling $17 billion. A Feb. 18 starting date would delay 37.7 million refunds totaling $87 billion.



  1. steve says:

    That is ironic since no one has ever seen a fiscally prudent Democratically controlled Congress.

    Lest you think I’m bashing one side, the entire time the Republicans controlled Congress they were just as bad but at least we go some relief in the form of lower taxes (and a side effect of higher revenues).

    I sure as hell don’t consider myself rich or one of those “155” in 1969 but I sure as hell get screwed by AMT every fucking year.

    fairtax.org

    steve-o

  2. ArianeB says:

    In my lifetime I have never seen a fiscally prudent Republican controlled congress either.

    All deficit spending (which the Republicans love) is paid for with invisible inflation taxes. When gas prices go up so do gas taxes, when housing goes up so do property taxes. This inflation tax affects the poor and middle class far more than the top 5% or so. The AMT is basically another inflation tax.

    What is ironic is that Bush is willing to let automatic taxes go up on millions to avoid “new” taxes on thousands.

  3. Pmitchell says:

    How bout they quit blowing my money. It is my money not taxes that belong to the govt lower my taxes and quit spending.

  4. James Hill says:

    Hack post by a hack editor. Not shocked.

    This blog fails at being relevant.

  5. Balbas says:

    Nice game dialog. Is that the one banned in Britain on request of the Queen?

  6. MikeN says:

    I’d say the 1995 Congress was fiscally prudent, and they kept spending control for a few years after that.

  7. MikeN says:

    The delay in refunds assumes that COngress will fix the AMT later. They might just pass and let everyone pay the higher taxes.

  8. eyeofthetiger says:

    [insert Congressional comedic episode]
    Some have hung out with Albrecht at Pimiento’s grove.

  9. Mister Mustard says:

    >>That is ironic since no one has ever seen
    >>a fiscally prudent Democratically
    >>controlled Congress.

    As a matter of course, Bill Clinton had huge budget surpluses during his two terms in office.

    http://tinyurl.com/4y4ln

    Granted, the Democrats did not “control” Congress during that time, but even a Republican-controlled Congress can occasionally recognize a good thing when they see it, and they passed the budgets that Clinton put forth.

    Ahhh, to have Slick Willie back in office again. Compared with the shameful nightmare the Chimperor in Chief and his butt-buddies in the legislature have subjected us to over the past two terms, Clinton’s presidency seems like Nirvana. Would that our biggest problem today was “What’s going on under that desk to make Clinton wear that shit-eating grin?”.

    Six years of unfettered Republican rule have brought the Republic to its knees. Only 424 days left to go; there’s light at the end of the tunnel!

  10. steve says:

    #9 MM – Yeah, and it’s probably another Clinton munching her way towards us…

  11. Mr. Fusion says:

    #1, Steve,

    Lest you think I’m bashing one side, the entire time the Republicans controlled Congress they were just as bad but at least we go some relief in the form of lower taxes (and a side effect of higher revenues).

    You are bashing one side. Republicans have this nasty habit pf letting future generations pay the bills. Add to that the Republicans spending almost $800 BILLION on Iraq so far and are asking for more.

    #3, Paul,

    How bout they quit blowing my money. It is my money not taxes that belong to the govt

    See my response to Steve.

    #4, James Hill

    Hack post by a hack editor. Not shocked.

    Still immature and irrelevant. Grow up.

    #6, MikeN,

    I’d say the 1995 Congress was fiscally prudent, and they kept spending control for a few years after that.

    Bullshit. It was Clinton’s veto that got the Budget under control. Congress had very little to do with it.

  12. Thomas says:

    What happened to the idea that the AMT was for the 155 wealthiest people to ensure they paid some tax? Well, the number people that qualify and will soon qualify for the AMT is a hell of a lot larger now. The AMT is an abomination which serves as a perfect example of why you should not trust any candidate or party that wants to raise taxes.

    #11
    Um, no. That was Congress that pushed Clinton to be accept a conservative budget.

  13. Mister Mustard says:

    >>Um, no. That was Congress that pushed Clinton
    >>to be accept a conservative budget.

    Are you on drugs, Thomas? You may be a saint, but you get an “F” in Current Events and American History.

    Clinton vetoed the Republican-controlled Congress’s tax-cutting pork-laden budgets, forcing them to approve the budgets that led to his unblemished record of massive budget surpluses.

    If the Republican Congress was left to its own devices, we’d have been swirling around the economic toilet bowl then, just the way we have been for the duration of Little King Georgie’s reign.

  14. MikeN says:

    Mustard, Fusion, you are living in a dream world.

    Clinton’s budgets presented deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars per year, justified because they are constant in terms of ‘percentage of the gross national product,’ a reasonable position.
    The Republican Congress, at that point in time, was all about cutting spending and balancing the budget. Clinton’s veto was because he didn’t approve of all the spending cuts.
    In the end they got him to agree to a balanced budget after two government shutdowns.

  15. Pmitchell says:

    First of there were never any surpluses they were only on paper and never actually there (remember Jimmy Carters little accounting trick of showing social security taxes as general income and writing IOU’s for it ) there was never even close to a surplus and the the inflated figures all you dems quote were extrapolated out to 2009 on current spending and income

    as for the spending the 1995 congress did better but then the 1998 and forward group spent just as much as the dems ever did.

  16. MikeN says:

    Pmitchell, stop with those facts.
    On this blog, it was Bill Clinton that tried to cut spending and balance the budget, vetoing the Republicans plans for higher spending and bigger deficits.

  17. Mr. Fusion says:

    #16, MikeN,

    Yes, you are correct. It was Clinton’s idea to give American companies tax breaks to move operations off shore, give tax breaks for oil companies to drill in Alaska Wildlife Preserves, remove pension obligations from companies while taxing pensions at a higher rate, reduce royalties from off shore oil reserves, and remove $163 BILLION from Medicare and Social Security.

    /sarcasm


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4474 access attempts in the last 7 days.