Orlando Sentinel columnist Peter Brown makes a compelling case that the AMT (alternaive minimum tax--grrr) results in the blue states subsidizing the red states (since state taxes tend to be lower in red states), and such ought to be kept. Hmmm. Almost makes me change my mind about this hated tax. I have noticed since the election that not a few liberals have started to discover the virtues of federalism, since blue states pay more taxes than red states and thereby subsidize the red states. Could it be? Liberals leading a tax revolt?
A recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece also noted that the AMT is a "flatter" tax in terms of ultimate rates than the regular code, and pointed out that, since a flatter tax code would be an improvement, one solution to the AMT issue would be simply to apply it to everyone and get rid of the regular code.
Keeping the AMT is a bad idea for Republicans. If you allow the Democrats to get hold of the AMT tax issue, then they will start to appeal to many in the Red States as a tax cutting party. Keeping the AMT will not change CA, NY, MA, etc states to go Red. Republicans must maintain their stance as a tax cutting party (they already have essentially given up as govt program/govt expenditure cutting party).
Please, please stop perpetuating this notion that states pay income taxes.
Individuals pay income taxes. "Red" individuals tend to pay a lot more taxes than "Blue" individuals regardless of where they live.
The additional AMT taxes I pay come from my pocket, not the fellow citizens of my state.
The loans seem to be useful for people, which would like to organize their own business. In fact, this is easy to get a auto loan.