An Argument for Keeping the AMT

An economist from the University of Maryland has written a piece in the Washington Post that argues for keeping the alternative minimum tax (AMT).  His argument, in a nutshell, is that if the AMT is allowed to stay in place, and if the temporary raise in the standard exemption is allowed to return to $45,000 for a couples and $33,750 for individuals (the new tax bill raises the standard exemption to $62,550 and $42,500 respectively for one year) with inflation there will eventually be a flat tax in place.  So for once we would have gradual tax reform without Congress having to do anything. The result:

If the present AMT rates were applied as a universal flat tax — and especially if the AMT exemption were reduced and certain remaining AMT exclusions eliminated — the resulting federal revenue might even come to exceed current expenditure levels. The solution would then be to reduce the flat tax rate (the AMT rate) so that revenue and expenditures were brought back into balance.

In the longer run, the AMT could open the way to more radical reforms that might even change the basic nature of Washington spending habits. One option would be as follows: Each year the president would submit his budget proposal, and Congress, in response, would enact final appropriations. A neutral expert commission would then estimate the resulting federal revenue requirements, and a new flat tax rate, calculated to balance the budget, would be set for the forthcoming tax year. If Congress wanted to go on a spending spree, taxpayers would see the consequences directly and immediately in their pocketbooks.

The Social Security system is another area in which the AMT might facilitate radical change. Social Security taxes could be abolished and the flat tax adjusted upward to compensate for the lost revenue. The Social Security trust fund is largely an accounting fiction, and it is time to integrate the Social Security tax with the income tax system. Alternatively, Social Security tax payments could become a deductible credit from the required AMT payment.


Discover more from Befuddled

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 thought on “An Argument for Keeping the AMT

  1. Pirated's avatarPirated

    The only thing that needs to be “gotten rid of” is the absorbant fees paid to the more known ATM — the BANK ATM!

    Reply

Leave a comment