Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Could it be rewritten with similar results? I realize the calculation is a mess, at least as I understand it from my accountant, because it appears that you take your regular tax, then back out a bunch of things (the prefernences you cite), apply different rates, and then come up with a surtax.
But that's just a calculation method keyed off the current code. Couldn't one rewrite the code to impose the AMT, allowing only deductions for charities and home mortgage (and whatever else)? Would there be a massive revenue loss because the major deduction would mean no poor people would pay any tax?
|
The massive revenue loss I was referring to is the loss that would result from simply repealing the AMT, as most have proposed.
If you were to rewrite the AMT, you would have to start from scratch, for instance, by defining what is income. As you can imagine, the horse-trading and lobbying would be in full bloom from the get-go, and we'd wind up with a new tax code that might look different than the one we have now, but it would be just as complex.
But maybe I'm just being cynical. I blame Steve Dahl and the Disco Demolition.
